initialling version for presentation to ngati tamatera …initialling version for presentation to...

In itia lling version fo r presentation to Ngati Tamatera fo r ratification purposes.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

PURPOSE OF THIS DEED

This deed -

© sets out an account of the acts and omissions of the Crown before 21 September 1992 that affected Ngati Tamatera and breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; and

© provides an acknowledgment by the Crown of the Treaty breaches and an apology; and

© settles the historical claims of Ngati Tamatera; and

• specifies the cultural redress, and the financial and commercial redress, to be providedin settlement to the governance entity that has been approved by Ngati Tamatera to receive the redress; and

• includes definitions o f-

- the historical claims; and

Ngati Tamatera; and

® provides for other relevant matters; and

is conditional upon settlement legislation coming into force.

1

2

2

3

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS


______ DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 1

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT.......................................................................................... 5

[Translation of historical account in te reo Maori]..............................................6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND APOLOGY.............................................................7

[Translation of acknowledgements and apology in te reo Maori]................. 12

SETTLEMENT.......................................................................................................... 13

CULTURAL REDRESS........................................................................................... 17

FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL REDRESS....................................................... 41

COLLECTIVE REDRESS........................................................................................53TlKAPA MOANA - TE TAI TAMAWAHINE..........................................................63

SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION, CONDITIONS, AND TERMINATION................65

GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION...........................................67


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

SCHEDULES

GENERAL MATTERS

1. Implementation of settlement2. Interest3. Tax4. Notice5. Miscellaneous6. Defined terms7. Interpretation

PROPERTY REDRESS

1. Disclosure information and warranty2. Vesting of cultural redress properties3. Commercial redress properties4. Commercial properties5. Deferred selection properties6. Second right of purchase property7. Deferred purchase8. Second right of purchase9. Terms of transfer10. Notice in relation to redress and deferred selection properties11. Definitions

DOCUMENTS

1. Ngati Tamatera values, protection principles and Director-General’s actions2. Statements of association (statutory acknowledgement)3. Statements of association (Tamaki Makaurau maunga)4. Statements of association5. Deed of recognition6. Protocols7. Encumbrances8. Lease for leaseback property9. Letter of facilitation10. Letter of introduction11. Letter to museums12. Deed of covenant for the governance entity

ATTACHMENTS

1. Area of interest2. Deed plans3. Te Puru School redress plan4. Co-governance arrangements at Waipatukahu5. Farm Park site maps6. Aotea RFR land7. Draft settlement bill


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

THIS DEED is made between

NGATI TAMATERA

and

THE CROWN

DEED OF SETTLEMENT

4


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 In clauses 1.1 to 1.16, Ngati Tamatera describe their korero tuku iho (traditional history) and their origins.

Ko tetehi o nga whakataukJ kua whakahuatia ake, ‘ko Ngati Tamatera ure koauau’.

He tino korero tenei ki nga uri whakaheke o Marutuahu whanui na te mea, i muri iho i te matenga atu o Marutuahu, i riro i a Tamatera te mana whakaheke o te matua.

Ka kitea te tikanga o tenei i roto i te rerenga korero ‘Ko Ngati Tamatera ure koauau’.

This aphorism is significant to the decendants of Marutuahu afar, for the reason that after the death of Marutuahu, Tamatera inherited the authority of his father.

1.2 Tamatera was the second son of Marutuahu and Paremoehau. The wives of Tamatera were TGmorewhitia, Ruawehea, and Hineurunga. From the marriage of Tamatera and Tumorewhitia, Putahi was produced. Ruawehea of Ngati Hako married Tamatera and they begat Paretera, Taharua, Taiuru, Maruiti, Taireina, Kunawhea and Honekai. From the marriage of Tamatera and Hineurunga came Te Hihi, Te Aokuranahe and their descendents.

1.3 The descendants of Tamatera were numerous and had vast interests of land at Moehau, Waikawau, Thames Coast, Hikutaia, Flauraki Plains, Waihou, Piako, WhakatTwai, Flarataunga, Coromandel, and Mataora in Flauraki; Mahurangi & North Shore, the Gulf Islands, Aotea, Central and South Auckland in Tamaki Makaurau; in and around Te Puna, Katikati, Te Kauri and Ongare in the Tauranga Moana area.

1.4 TTkapa Moana also provided a major food source for the descendants of Ngati Tamatera, and a means of transport which is epitomised in the whakatauakT

He ika ki te moana, ko au ki te whenua, ko Tikapa oneone, hokinga kainga e ko ko ia, e ara, e!

Fish in the sea, I remain to the land, to sands o f Tfkapa, my place, my home!

1.5 At one stage Tamatera lived with Ruawehea and their children on her lands. One particular pa where they resided was Pipimohe on the Waihou River near Hikutaia. Ruawehea died suddenly and Tamatera, deep in mourning, returned to his father’s pa at WhakatTwai where his family could console him. Fie was still a young man and in the protocols of tikanga Maori he soon found a new wife, Hineurunga, the sister of Paremoehau.

1.6 Having married Hineurunga, his father’s widow, Tamatera caused tension among his siblings. Whanaunga returned from Kawhia and, after hearing of this marriage, threatened to kill Tamatera.

1.7 Paremoehau, the mother of Tamatera, heard of this threat and warned Tamatera to leave so further problems would not escalate between the siblings of Marutuahu. The

In itia lling version for presentation to Ngati Tamatera fo r ratification purposes.

DEED OF SETTLEMENT1: BACKGROUND

sons of Hineurunga and Marutuahu, Te Ngako and Taurukapakapa, were also unhappy about what had occurred between their mother and Tamatera.

1.8 Further dispute amongst the brothers was already heightened after Tamatera had resumed the mana of his father by the way of sacred rituals during the passing of their father. Consequently, this event was referred to as Ngati Tamatera Ure Koauau.

1.9 It was also well known that Tamatera, while leaving the Hauraki area, took with him a taonga of great tribal significance from Repanga where it had, along with other sacred relics, arrived on the Tainui waka from Hawaiki. The taonga that is being referred to is the tribal mauri, a stone effigy called Marutuahu. Centuries later it was deposited in the care of the Auckland Museum after being taken to certain parts of the North Island.

1.10 Tamatera took his mother’s advice and journeyed back to Ohinemuri seeking refuge with his sons, Taharua and Taiuru, who were living at Ngahinapouri, Komata. By this time, he and Hineurunga had two children, a son called Te Hihi and a daughter called Te Aokuranahe. The latter he took with him to Ohinemuri, leaving Te Hihi behind with his mother. Te Hihi later become a warrior of note and the principal ancestor of the subtribe, Ngati Tawhaki of Ngati Tamatera.

1.11 Tamatera spent some time with Taharua, his son of Ruawehea, but was eventually challenged by other members of his iwi and moved on to Katikati where, Te Aokuranahe, his daughter of Hineurunga, reached adulthood and married the Ngati Awa chief, Tunumoho of Mataatua waka. They in turn had a son named Pukeko who was to become the eponymous ancestor of the great tribe at Whakatane. It is said that Tamatera spent most of his senior years in Whakatane and was buried in and around the Tuhoe area.

1.12 When the descendants of Ngati Tamatera became firmly established under their various leaders many subtribes were formed and these divisions commanded vast areas in Hauraki.

1.13 The descendants of Ngati Tamatera are inextricably linked to what is referred to as the tribes of Marutuahu. Many marriages have occurred over time bringing the bloodlines of Marutuahu as a formidable force and powerhouse to the Hauraki boundaries and areas.

1.14 One such example is the grand-daughter of Tamatera, Tukutuku, who was a renownedand celebrated monarch of the Hauraki peoples. Her descendants principally through Horowhenua, Tipa, and others are recognised as the decendants of Ngati Paoa. We also acknowledge our many kinship ties and marriages with Ngati Maru.

1.15 During the next 300 years the ancestors of Ngati Tamatera became involved incontinuous warfare not only among their related tribes but also in Northland, Tamaki, Waikato, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, central North Island, southern North Island and the South Island.

1.16 Through marriages and alliances Ngati Tamatera has formed many links to various tribes around the country. Ngati Tamatera sought refuge among some of these tribes during the wars of the 1820s. On their return to their own lands some years later they



found, following the advent of European settlers, their efforts were directed once more toward the retention of their lands, mountains, forests, waters, and traditional boundaries.

NEGOTIATIONS

1.17 Ngati Tamatera gave the mandated negotiators a mandate to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of historical Treaty claims of Ngati Tamatera with the Crown by four hui-a-iwi in Wellington, Auckland, Hamilton and Paeroa held between 11 and 27 March 2011.

1.18 The Crown recognised the mandate on 20 June 2011.

1.19 The mandated negotiators and the Crown -

1.19.1 entered into an agreement in principle equivalent dated 22 July 2011; and

1.19.2 since the agreement in principle equivalent, have -

(a) had extensive negotiations conducted in good faith; and

(b) negotiated and initialled a deed of settlement.

RATIFICATION AND APPROVALS

1.20 Ngati Tamatera have, by a majority of 95%, ratified and approved, between 30 June 2012 and 10 August 2012, the governance entity receiving the redress to be provided by the Crown to Ngati Tamatera in settlement of their historical claims.

1.21 The Crown, on 29 August 2012, recognised that the results of the ratification referred toin clause 1.20 demonstrated sufficient support from Ngati Tamatera for the governance entity to receive the redress under this deed.

1.22 Ngati Tamatera have, since the initialling of the deed of settlement, by a majority of [ ]%, ratified this deed and approved its signing on their behalf by the mandatednegotiators.

1.23 Each majority referred to in clauses 1.20 and 1.22 is of valid votes cast in a ballot by eligible members of Ngati Tamatera.

1.24 The governance entity approved entering into[ the deed of covenant referred to in clause 1.26.2] and complying with this deed by [process (resolution o f trustees etc)] on [date].

1.25 The Crown is satisfied -

1.25.1 with the ratification and approvals of Ngati Tamatera referred to in clauses1.20 and 1.22: and



1.25.2 with the governance entity’s approval referred to in clause 1.24; and

1.25.3 the governance entity is appropriate to receive the redress.

ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNANCE ENTITY

1.26 The governance entity -

1.26.1 has been established to receive the redress on behalf of Ngati Tamatera;

1.26.2 has executed a deed of covenant in the form attached in part 12 of thedocuments schedule; and

1.26.3 is treated as having been a party to this deed and must comply with all obligations of the governance entity under this deed.

AGREEMENT

1.27 Therefore, the parties -

1.27.1 in a spirit of good faith and co-operation wish to enter into this deed settling the historical claims; and

1.27.2 agree and acknowledge as provided in this deed.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

2 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

2.1 The Crown’s acknowledgements and apology to Ngati Tamatera in part 3 are based on this historical account.

PRE-TREATY TRANSACTIONS OVER THE TAMAKI BLOCK

2.2 Between 1836 and 1839 several missionaries negotiated a series of agreements with five iwi including Ngati Tamatera and other Marutuahu concerning a large block of land at Tamaki, calculated in the twentieth century to be approximately 83,000 acres. The missionaries and rangatira who signed the deeds primarily hoped the transaction would allow Maori to occupy the land without conflict, but also envisaged one of the missionaries purchasing some of the land. A year later a missionary wrote on the deed that he returned one-third of the land to the sellers, to be distributed to them when the land was surveyed based on their population numbers.

2.3 In January 1840, before te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, Lieutenant Governor Hobson issued two proclamations declaring that the Crown would not recognise any land claims by Europeans based on pre-Treaty purchases without first investigating the transactions.

2.4 At the direction of Governor Hobson, the treaty document was taken south for the purposes of obtaining further signatures from rangatira. The governor made the trip from the Bay of Islands to the Waitemata. At Karaka Bay on 4 March 1840, a number of Marutuahu rangatira signed te Tiriti. One signatory was “Paora”, who it is thought to be Paora Te Putu of Ngati Tamatera. However this cannot be firmly established. Another copy of the treaty was taken to a meeting held at Coromandel Harbour on 4 May but no Ngati Tamatera rangatira signed the document. It is believed Taraia Ngakuti Te Tumuhuia of Ngati Tamatera was one of two rangatira who refused to sign the treaty. Taraia was vigorous in preserving his rangatiratanga and mana during his lifetime. He later told the governor that he had not signed the treaty and did not recognise the Governor’s authority but was willing to work with him.

2.5 Later in 1840 the Crown established a Land Claims Commission through which claimants could have pre-Treaty land transactions examined with a view to obtaining Crown title. The commissioners could recommend the Governor grant up to a maximum of 2560 acres to settlers. The Crown wished to ensure individual settlers did not become owners of large areas of land. If the commissioners concluded that more land had been validly sold by Maori than the Crown was willing to grant to settlers, the Crown’s policy was to retain the balance as “surplus land.”

2.6 A land claims commissioner began considering the Tamaki claim in 1841. In 1842, after hearing from eleven Maori witnesses and the missionary claimant, the commissioner recommended to the Governor that the Crown leave one third of the Tamaki purchase in the “undisturbed possession” of Maori. The commissioner considered that Maori had alienated the remainder of the land to the missionary, and recommended awarding him 2560 acres, the maximum amount of acreage allowable under the 1841 ordinance. The governor asked a second commissioner to review the case with a view to awarding more than the 2560-acre maximum amount of land specified in the 1841 ordinance. The second commissioner recommended the Crown grant approximately 6000 acres,


DEED OF SETTLEMENT2: HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

and Governor FitzRoy approved the missionary’s selection of approximately 5494 acres of land in nine grants.

2.7 In the 1840s at least one Governor and several senior officials understood that the missionary and Maori vendors had agreed Maori would retain at least one-third of the land within the purchase area. Maori from several iwi continued to live upon and establish new settlements on parts of the block, but no action was taken to formalise Maori rights. In 1842 the Crown had also asserted its rights to the “surplus land” awarding a settler a right to harvest flax in 20,000 acres.

2.8 In 1851, the Crown issued a timber license to a settler for land near Maraetai. Ngati Tamatera objected to the Crown’s actions and obstructed the settler’s milling operation. After an investigation by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, the Crown and Ngati Tamatera signed an agreement through which Ngati Tamatera relinquished their claims in the Tamaki block in exchange for £200. Two of the four other iwi who were part of the pre-Treaty agreements also signed similar agreements and received £600 between them. No land was reserved to Ngati Tamatera.

2.9 Commissions of inquiry which investigated Maori concerns about the surplus lands policy did not investigate the Tamaki block because three of the five iwi who signed the original pre-Treaty transaction received payment for the surplus lands the Crown took from this block in the early 1850s. Nevertheless, the Crown assumed ownership of what was later found to be approximately 78,000 acres of land from the Tamaki block in accordance with its surplus lands policy, which was the largest area of surplus obtained from any pre-Treaty land claim. The purchase was never surveyed in its entirety, though parts were surveyed as it was subdivided.

CROWN PURCHASES AT MAHURANGI AND KOHIMARAMA

2.10 Crown policy was to purchase land at a low price from Maori and on-sell it at high prices. Colonisation was to be funded by the substantial difference between the amount the Crown paid to purchase Maori land and the amount it received when it on-sold it to settlers. Crown officials are likely to have assured Ngati Tamatera that they would derive significant collateral economic advantages from the growth of European settlement in Tamaki.

2.11 In 1841 Governor Hobson moved the colony’s capital from Russell to Auckland, which became the main European settlement and the leading commercial port. The governor wished to acquire further land around the harbour and soon after arriving, in 1841, Ngati Tamatera, as one of ‘the united tribes of Thames’, offered to ‘sell land in the vicinity of the Waitemata known as Mahurangi’ to the Crown. The block was not surveyed at the time, but a recent estimate put its area at approximately 220,000 acres. Marutuahu rangatira accompanied the Crown Surveyor and his assistant to its northern extremity at Te Arai Point. Land at Awataha on the North Shore was reserved from this purchase for Ngati Tamatera and other iwi. The reserve was alienated by rangatira from a related iwi in 1844. No other reserves were set aside for Ngati Tamatera.

2.12 In May 1841, the Crown also purchased the 6000-acre Kohimarama Block from Ngati Paoa for £100, a boat, live stock, clothing, tools and dry goods. At this time the Crown sold rural lands for a minimum price of £1 per acre.



2.13 No reserves were made in Kohimarama at the time of the sale. Ngati Tamatera and other Marutuahu iwi understand that they were promised land at Saint George’s Bay in 1842 as a base for when they travelled to Auckland from Hauraki. While a reserve was established at Mechanics Bay, and land at Blackett’s Point above Saint George’s Bay was set aside as an endowment to fund the reserve at Mechanics Bay, both pieces of land were eventually included in a trust for all Maori and ‘poor people’ visiting Auckland. The endowment reserve was taken out of the trust when it was declared a public domain by statute in 1898 as it was thought the land was no longer required to maintain the hostelry. Today parts of the land set aside for the Mechanics Bay reserve are Maori freehold land and are administered by the Maori Trustee.

2.14 Ngati Tamatera were left with no reserves in the greater Tamaki region and were thus excluded from the economic benefits of growth in Auckland.

GOLD AGREEMENTS: COROMANDEL, 1852 TO 1863

2.15 In October and November 1852, gold was discovered at Driving Creek north of the present day township of Coromandel on land of the Te Matewaru hapu of Ngati Tamatera. In November the Crown and Maori met at Patapata to discuss gold mining at a hui attended by approximately 1000 Maori including Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Paoa, Te Patukirikiri, Te Matewaru of Ngati Tamatera, and other Ngati Tamatera from elsewhere in Hauraki. Thirty-six leaders of Ngati Paoa, Ngati Whanaunga and Te Patukirikiri signed an agreement dated 20 November 1852 that gave the Crown control over licensed prospecting and mining in specified areas they owned for three years. However, Ngati Tamatera rangatira Taraia Ngakuti and Paora Te Putu expressed reservations about ceding mining rights to the Crown and neither signed the agreement as they were concerned about the impact of prospecting.

2.16 Throughout 1853 the Crown unsuccessfully tried to obtain the consent of Paora and Taraia to Crown management of gold mining on Ngati Tamatera lands in the Coromandel area. Ngati Tamatera had not alienated any land in Coromandel when, by mid-1854, interest in the Coromandel goldfield had declined as it had returned little gold. Nevertheless, the Crown soon began purchasing land from other iwi.

2.17 In 1861, goldmining revived and 26 Marutuahu iwi representatives, including Ngati Tamatera, signed a new agreement opening some Hauraki lands to mining. This agreement provided for prospecting on lands from Waiau to Moehau on both sides of the Coromandel Peninsula. The agreement contained provisions which protected Maori land ownership and provided for the Crown to preserve order in the goldfield.

2.18 While Te Moananui, Tareranui and Takarei Te Putu (Paora’s nephew) were among the Ngati Tamatera who signed this 1861 agreement, some Te Matewaru representatives such as Te Hira did not sign because he was opposed to gold mining. The lands of Te Matewaru near Kikowhakarere and Koputauaki (also known as Tokatea) were not included in the agreement as the representative of the recently deceased rangatira, Paora Te Putu, respected his wishes to reserve the land for Maori miners and did not sign.

2.19 However, in June 1862, the Crown agreed with other sections of Ngati Tamatera to open Te Matewaru lands at Koputauaki/Tokatea to mining. . The cruiser HMS Harrier transported the governor to Coromandel for this meeting and anchored in the harbour



during the proceedings. On 28 June, a few days after the Tokatea agreement was reached, Governor Grey proclaimed most of the Coromandel Peninsula a goldfield including the Te Matewaru lands at Tokatea. The field officially opened two days later.

2.20 Te Hira was not present and did not sign the agreement and was extremely angry when he arrived on 28 June.

2.21 He initially opposed mining on the land of Te Matewaru but eventually accepted £600 of the £1000 paid by the Crown. Some Ngati Tamatera considered that the payment was to recognise Te Hira’s interests in the land. However, Te Hira was reported to have said he accepted the money from others in recognition of how they had "trampled under foot the Maori law.” Te Hira continued to oppose goldmining in other parts of the Ngati Tamatera rohe.

WAR AND RAUPATU IN SOUTH AUCKLAND AND WAIKATO

2.22 In mid-1863, tension built in the the south west of the rohe of Ngati Tamaterain response to conflict between the KTngitanga and the Crown. The Crown considered South Auckland and Hauraki lands strategically important because of the need to protect supply lines and settlements in and around Auckland. On 12 July 1863 Crown forces crossed the Mangatawhiri stream, invading KTngitanga territory and initiating war.

2.23 Ngati Tamatera were not involved in any plans to attack the Crown prior to the crossing of the Mangatahiwiri Stream by the Crown’s forces. After war began in 1863, Ngati Tamatera publicly announced the iwi’s refusal to fight and endeavoured to create a boundary at Tararu Point on the coast which KTngitanga forces fighting the Crown could not cross. However, Ngati Tamatera tradition records that the iwi supported the kaupapa of the KTngitanga and continued to regard the Crown with suspicion.

2.24 In October 1863, the Crown sent HMS Miranda and HMS Sandfly to blockade the Firth of Thames, in order to prevent military supplies reaching the KTngitanga and patrol for “rebel” Maori. These warships destroyed waka and intimidated Maori living on the coastal areas of Hauraki, including Ngati Tamatera.

2.25 Fighting between the Crown and Maori in the Waikato ended in April 1864 and Crown officials asked Maori, including Hauraki iwi, to lay down their guns. While the iwi had not taken up arms against the Crown, Ngati Tamatera surrendered their guns to Crown forces in April 1864. Between 1864 and 1865 the Crown confiscated land in the central Waikato under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 to punish Maori it considered to have been rebels. The confiscation included land in which Ngati Tamatera had customary interests.

2.26 The New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 provided for the establishment of a Compensation Court to determine compensation for those whose lands were confiscated but had not participated in rebellion. Hauraki Maori with claims to the confiscated lands subsequently submitted applications to the Crown seeking compensation The court did not, however, consider the Hauraki applications. Instead the Crown appointed an agent and authorised him to negotiate with Maori to reach settlements outside the court for land in the East Waikato block Records of the



negotiations with Hauraki iwi are limited and precise figures may not be available, but two other Marutuahu iwi received at least £1,300 compensation.

2.27 Ngati Tamatera received neither money nor land to compensate them for their interests in land confiscated in 1864 and 1865 in the vicinity of the Waikato River.

TAURANGA MOANA: RAUPATU AND THE TE PUNA AND KATIKATI PURCHASE

2.28 Between April and June 1864, the Crown conducted military operations against Maori in Tauranga Moana. In 1865 the Crown proclaimed a confiscation district of 214,000 acres, and in 1868 a further 76,000 acres were added to this district by the Tauranga District Lands Act. Ngati Tamatera had customary interests in parts of this district. Governor Grey promised to return three quarters of this land to those who had not been involved in the fighting.

2.29 Land in the Tauranga confiscation district that became known as the Te Puna and Katikati blocks was part of the land marked for return to Maori. During 1864, the Crown entered into negotiations with another iwi to purchase these two blocks of approximately 90,000 acres. The Crown then paid a deposit of £1000 to the other iwi for this land.

2.30 These arrangements with another iwi drew Ngati Tamatera into the negotiations. In September 1864, a number of Ngati Tamatera leaders including Te Hira, Te Moananui, and Taraia wrote to the Crown opposing the Te Puna and Katikati purchase. Taraia threatened to use force if the Crown did not recognise his interests in Katikati.

2.31 In December 1864, a Ngati Tamatera delegation led by Te Moananui agreed to an arbitration process over part of the lands in which he claimed interests. The arbitrators were the civil commissioners for Auckland and Tauranga. They concluded that the Katikati block (located between Te Kahakaha and Nga Kuri a Wharei) should be surveyed and the purchase money divided equally between Ngati Tamatera and the iwi with whom the Crown had first entered negotiations. Urupa were to be surveyed and reserved from the transaction.

2.32 The commissioner’s report dealt only with Taraia’s claim to the Katikati block, but Taraia and other Ngati Tamatera claimed interests further south including parts of the adjoining Te Puna block. In June and July 1866 Ngati Tamatera and other iwi signed deeds with the Crown to finalise the Katikati arbitration and make additional agreements relating to their interests in the Te Puna block. Ngati Tamatera was to receive a share of £1660 the Crown agreed to pay Hauraki iwi for their interests in the Katikati and Te Puna blocks.

2.33 In addition to this payment, urupa reserves at Pukewhakataratara (50 acres), Tiroa (5 acres), Paewai (5 acres), Takaihuehue (5 acres), Ngatukituki (5 acres), and Tangitu (5 acres) were identified in the deeds signed by Ngati Tamatera and other Hauraki iwi. However no evidence has been found that these urupa were ever reserved. While the Crown set aside nearly 8000 acres in the Te Puna and Katikati blocks for other iwi, Ngati Tamatera were only awarded two reserves of 15 acres and 50 acres. This seriously undermined Ngati Tamatera’s long-standing associations in Tauranga Moana.



OPPOSITION TO LAND ALIENATION

2.34 From 1864, after the conclusion of the Waikato war, there was much greater interest in gold mining at Thames and Ohinemuri. A further agreement between the Crown and Ngati Tamatera was signed in 1864 to manage gold mining activities at Coromandel. None of the iwi’s Thames or Ohinemuri lands were included. Ngati Tamatera remained strongly opposed to alienation of any kind on their lands at Ohinemuri and iwi traditions record that Te Hira established and maintained an aukati or boundary at the Omahu Stream in the Ohinemuri block.

2.35 The opposition of some Ngati Tamatera to mining and land sales in Thames and Ohinemuri was further influenced after the war by the arrival of Pai Marire or Hauhau missionaries in the Ohinemuri area in 1865. The Hauhau movement was founded by Te Ua Haumene in 1862. Based on the Christian Bible, it promised the achievement of Maori autonomy and the protection of their land through divine intervention.

2.36 Following the war Ngati Tamatera of Ohinemuri, especially Te Hira and Tukukino of Ngati Kiriwera, were aligned with the KTngitanga. In April 1867, Te Hira declared his lands a refuge for those Maori pursued by the Crown in the aftermath of war in the Waikato and Tauranga. Te Hira and Tukukino also attended King Tawhiao’s great meeting at Tokangamutu the following year with many of their people. At the meeting, Tawhiao repeated his disapproval of land sales and leasing and gold mining, a view Te Hira shared. Te Hira also extended support to Te Kooti who had founded another religious movement and was involved in conflict with the Crown and its Maori allies.

GOLDMINING AT THAMES

2.37 Initially, those aligned with the KTngitanga rejected the Crown’s attempts to arrange leases for gold mining purposes. By 1867, however, some Ngati Tamatera rangatira were willing to engage in negotiations with the Crown to permit mining on their lands north of Thames. On 9 November 1867, the Crown signed an agreement with Te Moananui and 26 others of Ngati Tamatera called the Te Mamaku I deed. Through this deed Ngati Tamatera ceded mining rights to the Crown for all Ngati Tamatera interests in lands from Te Mamaku, just south of Te Puru on the Thames coast, up the coast to Moehau and around the top of the peninsula to Whitianga. This deed extended the area of Ngati Tamatera land which could be mined beyond that agreed in 1864. Te Hira signed, but remained opposed to mining at Ohinemuri. The agreement provided for an initial payment of £500 by the Crown, to be recouped from revenue generated by mining licences. In addition, the Crown was to meet the cost of surveying areas of the iwi’s lands excluded from the agreement and to survey boundaries of land owned by other iwi.

2.38 In this second phase of gold mining, capital and machinery were required to effectively mine the quartz deposits and by 1865 companies had become a significant presence on the goldfields. Although companies were formed and capital invested in the gold field, the mining of the field was not considered to be a success.

2.39 Te Moananui repeatedly complained about the collection and distribution of the revenue from the goldfield. In the 1860s the Crown had difficulty making payments to Maori owed money for mining leases. In a two year period from August 1867, £22,176 was collected by the Crown to pay to Maori landowners. Less than half of this amount,



£10,975, had been received by Maori landowners up to the end of January 1869. Revenues generated through goldfields leases were initially distributed to rangatira of the iwi as representatives of the wider iwi. As most of these lands remained in customary title in the 1860s and were unsurveyed. Crown officials had difficulty identifying those who should receive payment.

2.40 The mining agreements the Crown and Ngati Tamatera entered into in 1862, 1864 and 1867 contained certain benefits for Maori relating to the goldfields. In October 1868 the Auckland Provincial Council introduced new provisions to manage the revenue flows of the goldfields without consulting the iwi who signed the agreements.

2.41 In August 1869, leaders of Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Maru, and Ngati Whanaunga petitioned Parliament about the new regulations complaining that they contained no reference to the reservation of their lands for residences, cultivations and burial grounds, and noted an expected reduction in the revenue they would earn from mining leases. The petitioners also complained about the lack of consultation about the changes. The select committee that considered the petition disagreed with the petitioners, but an amendment to the Gold Fields Act in 1869 included some modifications to address their concerns.

GOLDMINING AT OHINEMURI

2.42 Despite key Ngati Tamatera rangatira opposing the opening of Ohinemuri to goldmining, in 1867 and 1868, some Ngati Tamatera supported goldmining in the area. On 19 December 1867, 63 Ngati Tamatera signed a preliminary cession agreement leasing their Ohinemuri lands for goldmining. The Crown paid them £500 for entering the agreement and a £1000 advance against future revenue.

2.43 Taraia did not sign this agreement, but wrote to the governor to advise that he accepted that the agreement would give the gold to the Crown, but not the land. However, as Te Hira had not signed the 19 December agreement, the Crown chose not to open the Ohinemuri district to gold mining at this time.

THE NATIVE LAND COURT IN HAURAKI

2.44 By 1870, the Crown was focussed on preparing for Native Land Court hearings into Ohinemuri and purchasing land in the Coromandel area. Crown officials expected court awards to undermine the stalemate in goldmining negotiations for Ohinemuri.

2.45 The Crown established the Native Land Court under the Native Lands Acts of 1862 and 1865 and had held its first hearings in the Hauraki district in 1865. The Acts establishing the Native Land Court set aside the Crown’s Article 2 Treaty right of preemption. Maori landowners listed in the title could alienate their interests in the land by lease or sale to private parties or the Crown once title had been awarded.

2.46 Any Maori person could initiate a title investigation through the Native Land Court by submitting an application to the court. Once an application was submitted, all of those with customary interests needed to participate in the hearing if they wished to be included in the Crown title regardless of whether they wanted a Crown title or not. Customary tenure was complex and facilitated multiple land use through shared



relationships with the land. The new land laws required those rights to be fixed within a surveyed boundary and did not necessarily include all those with a customary interest in the land. Under customary Maori title land was held communally. When Crown titles were awarded to Ngati Tamatera lands, interests were awarded to named individuals.

2.47 In mid-May 1870, the Native Land Court convened at the Ohinemuri meeting house of Te Hira to begin considering lands in the Ohinemuri area. Only Owharoa and Waihi were heard in 1870. Another iwi claimed and was awarded Owharoa, while Waihi was awarded to Ngati Tamatera. Tensions between Ngati Tamatera and other iwi led to armed conflict in 1870 and the court withdrew from the area.

ALIENATION OF MOEHAU, WAIKAWAU AND OHINEMURI

2.48 In the early 1870s, the Crown implemented a national development policy which included large scale land purchases in the North Island including the Hauraki region and land blocks in which Ngati Tamatera had customary interests. As part of this land purchasing programme, in March 1872 the Crown appointed a land agent, on commission, to purchase lands at Waikawau, Moehau, and Ohinemuri, where Ngati Tamatera had significant interests.

2.49 To protect its negotiations to acquire Maori land, the Crown issued proclamations under the Immigration and Public Works Amendment Act 1871 in July and October 1872 covering the Ohinemuri and Te Aroha areas, and again in 1874, prohibiting private transactions over lands containing gold in the entire Coromandel Peninsula and the Hauraki Plains south to Te Aroha. These proclamations gave the Crown a monopoly purchasing position. Ngati Tamatera were among 165 Maori who wrote to Parliament opposing the Crown’s monopoly, complaining that the proclamations caused “loss and inconvenience.”

2.50 After the monopoly proclamations were in place, the Crown attempted to acquire the interests of individuals in lands in which Ngati Tamatera had interests, before the Native Land Court had awarded titles for these lands, The Crown acquired many interests through the use of raihana. This was a system whereby store goods were provided to Maori and paid for by the Crown with the sums involved being treated as payments against Maori lands. These pre-title advances were made in the form of small scale store credit and later large scale advances for hakari and tangi. Ngati Tamatera tradition records that their impoverishment after the war led to their participation in the raihana system.

2.51 In 1872, for example, the Ngati Tamatera rangatira Taraia and Paora Te Putu both died. Crown officials made raihana agreements for goods worth £3000 which Ngati Tamatera used for the tangi. This raihana was charged against the Waikawau block in the first instance, but as some Maori who had accepted the raihana did not have interests in Waikawau, the goods were charged against Moehau and Ohinemuri for which the Crown also paid cash advances.

2.52 The Crown’s land agent recognised that transactions the Crown entered into with individual Maori would undermine the objections to land alienation held by rangatira such as Te Hira, who supported KTngitanga aspirations to retain ownership and control of land. The land agent recorded that Te Hira would not be able to “stand alone against the wishes of the whole tribe.’” _



2.53 The debt some Ngati Tamatera individuals incurred through the raihana system in the early 1870s was substantial. By December 1872, the Crown’s local land agent informed the Native Minister that the amount advanced to Ngati Tamatera in cash and store goods was approaching £26,000 and had been secured against several land blocks. Ngati Tamatera strongly objected to the way in which debt had been accumulated against their Ohinemuri, Moehau, and Waikawau in a piecemeal fashion and through the provision of goods at various stores.

2.54 By 1874, as the raihana increased, those who had previously opposed mining at Ohinemuri saw mining concessions as a way of repaying the amounts owed, so that they could retain ownership of the land. By early December, Ngati Tamatera had tentatively agreed to lease Ohinemuri to the Crown for mining to cover the £15,000 debt accumulated by Ngati Tamatera and other Maori against the Ohinemuri block. If the land was not goldbearing, Maori agreed that land equal to the debt would be conveyed to the Crown. Te Hira was to manage the land for the iwi and hapu who had interests in the land. Reserves were arranged and boundaries negotiated.

2.55 Te Moananui was still extremely unhappy about the liability of landowners for raihana. He and Te Hira wanted these advances and the debt to be charged against Moehau and Waikawau and the balance written off. They did not want these amounts to be charged against Ohinemuri. They were aware, however, that some of the individuals who had debts against Ohinemuri had no interests in Moehau and Waikawau. Te Moananui and Te Hira also understood that one of the possible outcomes of the agreement was that if insufficient revenue was generated by gold mining through the proposed lease, they could still lose their Ohinemuri lands. The Crown’s land agent recognised that Ngati Tamatera were opposed to the alienation of the land, and publicly stated that the land would remain with Maori with the gold only passing into Crown control. After receiving this commitment, Te Hira initially against the agreement, by 22 December withdrew his opposition.

2.56 The December 1874 agreement was confirmed when Ngati Tamatera signed an agreement with the Crown on 18 February 1875 at a ceremony attended by the Colonial Secretary and the Native Minister. Eighty eight individuals including Te Hira and his sister Mere Kuru signed, but Te Moananui did not. In all, 210 people signed the lease and the Ohinemuri block was proclaimed open for goldmining in early 1875. The lease, however, was not signed by all those who the Native Land Court subsequently recognised as owners of Ohinemuri and the Crown applied all the rental income to the repayment of the advances it had paid Maori before 1875, despite not all of the owners having accepted these advances. As a result Ngati Tamatera and other Maori did not receive any income from gold mining in their rohe.

RESIDENCE SITE LICENCES

2.57 In the 1860s, with the owners’ agreement, the Crown included occupation and other rights in its gold mining licenses. These licenses applied to land awarded to Ngati Tamatera including the Waipatukahu 5B block. These residence site licences were incorporated into the new mining legislation regime which was introduced in the early 1870s. In return for a small annual fee, licensees received a long-term and renewable right to occupy and build upon a site of up to one acre, for which the Crown collected fees which it paid to Maori landowners in addition to mining lease payments. Licensees did not have to be gold miners. Maori were unable to remove their lands from such



agreements, although the Crown had the power to cancel licences. Despite the decline of gold mining in Hauraki after the 1860s, the Crown did not revoke the declarations of the goldfields, which meant that residence site licences and the lands they concerned remained subject to Crown control. The Crown continued to grant residence site licences through to the late 1920s.

2.58 Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the Crown did not ensure rents for the licences or leases were regularly revised to account for inflation, which meant Maori landowners frequently received rents for their lands which were well below market values. In 1962 Parliament passed the Mining Tenures Registration Act, which removed the Crown’s power to cancel licences for breach of the original conditions of use and converted the licences to leases renewable every twenty-one years in perpetuity. In 1976 some Pare Hauraki leaders sought a resolution to their outstanding residence site licence grievances in the High Court. They were unsuccessful. However, in 1980 they reached an agreement with the Crown. The Crown made compensation for lands subject to residence site licences, for the inadequacy of past rents, and for Maori having no alternative but to have those lands purchased by the Crown.

NATIVE LAND COURT TITLE INVESTIGATIONS, MOEHAU, WAIKAWAU, AND OHINEMURI

2.59 The Crown applied to have its interests in the Moehau block determined by the Native Land Court in September 1878. The Crown had acquired these interests through pretitle advances in the form of direct payments and goods in kind made since 1872. Maori agreed to the 1875 Ohinemuri lease to repay the raihana and advances totalling £15,000 that the Crown had paid to Ngati Tamatera and others. The Crown’s application for interests in Waikawau and Moehau would satisfy further parts of the debt. Consequently, the court issued orders vesting an area of 22,125 acres in the Crown as well as issuing smaller areas of land to individuals of Ngati Tamatera and two other iwi. Ngati Tamatera received approximately 6000 acres in six blocks, but within two years, the Crown had purchased further interests in Moehau including parts reserved from the original purchase for Ngati Tamatera.

2.60 In 1878, the Native Land Court also determined that Ngati Tamatera were owners of Waikawau. In recognition of existing agreements with the Crown, the court transferred ownership of 44,161 acres (most of the block) to the Crown creating 16 reserves totalling 5017 acres for Maori.

2.61 Despite the 1875 lease and Maori expectations that the freehold of Ohinemuri would remain in their ownership, by 1877 the Crown had begun negotiating the purchase of individual interests in this block. By 1879, Crown agents had obtained 260 signatures to this deed which they thought equated to approximately two-thirds of the block. Following earlier difficulties with the raihana system, these transactions involved monetary payments and not vouchers for store goods charged against Maori owned land. Crown agents were still working under a Crown monopoly, established in May 1878 by a proclamation under the Government Land Purchases Act of 1877 prohibiting Maori from alienating their land to private parties in specified blocks where the Crown had purchased interests, including Ohinemuri, Waikawau, Moehau, and other blocks in which Ngati Tamatera had interests.



2.62 In 1880, the Crown applied to the Native Land Court to have its interests defined. In some instances those individuals who received pre-title advances were not aware of which land or how much of it would be alienated. At this court hearing, many of those who had received money were unwilling to participate in the title investigation. The hearing did not proceed at this time because not all Maori were aware of how much land the Crown had acquired.

2.63 The Crown proceeded to acquire further individual interests over the next two years before it applied again to the court to have its interests determined. In its 1882 application the Crown asked the Native Land Court to define its interests in Ohinemuri proportionate to the shares it had purchased after 1875. Of the £15,000 in raihana and advances which had been charged against Ohinemuri before 1875, approximately £8000 had yet to be repaid. In 1882, during Native Land Court hearings the Crown agreed to write-off that remaining amount. Right-holders who had not sold their land before 1875, but who had agreed to the goldmining agreement of 1875, had not received their lease monies as the Crown withheld them to pay off the debt against the block.

2.64 In 1882, the court awarded the Crown freehold title to more than half of the Ohinemuri block. The court found that more than 200 individuals had rights in the block. As part of this process, reserves in Ohinemuri were set aside for those who had sold land to the Crown and other areas were set aside for non-sellers. Ngati Tamatera received approximately 4000 acres of reserves in the Ohinemuri block, with no alienation restrictions. A further six reserves of 10 acres or less were to be set aside to be held in trust. They were declared to be inalienable. They were Rauwharangi, Waitawhera-Te Pahi, Kotangitangi, Rau o Te Whero, Kahotara and Perekewhakaputaia. Rau o Te Whero and Perekewhakaputaia were vested in 1885. However, Rauwharangi and Kotangitangi were vested in 1978 in a tribal organisation. No record has been located to show the other two reserves were created.

2.65 In 1882, when the court finalised the Crown’s interests in the Ohinemuri block, many of those who had received payments from Crown agents were not included in the title. Of 260 individuals who had signed the sale agreement after 1878, 193 were awarded interests by the court. As the court awarded unequal shares to the many owners, forty three of those found to have interests had been overpaid by £4415 and 150 had been underpaid by £5714. After the Court awarded title to the block another 141 individuals sold their land to the Crown in 1882 leaving approximately 85 who retained ownership. By 1900, Ngati Tamatera and others retained an area of less than 600 acres in the Ohinemuri lands.

OTHER CROWN PURCHASES IN LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES

2.66 During the nineteenth century the Crown purchased other Ngati Tamatera lands in additional to Moehau, Waikawau, and Ohinemuri. By 1877, some 70 per cent of Maori land in the Coromandel Peninsula, Thames, Ohinemuri, and Waihi areas had been alienated. The Crown did not seek to purchase Ngati Tamatera interests in the Hauraki Plains until the late 1870s. The first Crown purchases of Ngati Tamatera land in the Hauraki Plains were finalised in 1878 and included Ahikope, Omotai, Te Nihinihi, Te Tautiti, Totarapapa, Waihou, and Wharekahu. In most cases the Crown finalised its purchases within a year or two of title having been issued by the Native Land Court. ^



2.67 Other Crown purchases occurred in the early twentieth century. In early 1906, the Commissioners of Crown Lands were instructed to identify Maori-owned land which was suitable for settlement purposes. Auckland officials recommended that all Maori land remaining in the Ohinemuri and Thames counties should be acquired by the Crown. Nine blocks were identified by the commissioners for priority negotiations, including the Kaikahu block in which Ngati Tamatera were awarded shares. Wherever the Crown was able to obtain interests in a block, it could apply to have its interests determined by the Native Land Court, which could partition the block and award portions to the Crown. Between 1905 and 1909 where the Crown was able to negotiate the purchase of a majority of interests in the land, section 20 of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905 provided for the entire block to become Crown land.

2.68 In 1907, the Crown recruited a land purchase officer to negotiate the purchase of this land. He anticipated significant opposition from Maori to the acquisition of these lands by the Crown, but considered that debt and food shortages caused by crop failure provided an opportunity to purchase land in the district. That year a preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Native Lands and Native Land Tenure, the Stout-Ngata Commission, expressed significant concern about the low level of land remaining in Maori ownership across the Hauraki district and recommended that most of it remain in Maori ownership.

2.69 Despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the Crown acquired some additional Ngati Tamatera lands in 1907 and 1908 under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. The Crown acquired an area of 13,468 acres of land in Hauraki while this Act was in force. This included Ngati Tamatera interests in Kaikahu acquired in 1907 and 1908, and the 2458-acre Ngati Tamatera reserve in Ohinemuri 17, which the Crown also purchased in 1908 under the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905. Overall, the Crown acquired 4220 acres of the Ohinemuri reserves in the early twentieth century along with 1044 acres of Te Aroha reserves and 5487 acres of Whangamata, all areas in which Ngati Tamatera had customary interests. By 1910 approximately 85 per cent of Hauraki lands had been alienated from Maori ownership.

GOLD COMMISSION, 1935

2.70 In 1935, Ngati Tamatera and others presented two petitions concerning mining revenues to Parliament. The Crown referred them to a commissioner. Although the commissioner rejected the claim that Maori were entitled to receive payments for mining rights after the lands in question were permanently alienated, he concluded that the state of the records left him unable to determine what payments were made by the Crown to Maori for mining rights. Nonetheless, he thought that there was a certain amount of doubt “as to the proper distribution to the Natives of the money they were entitled to.” For this, and other reasons, the commissioner recommended an ex gratia payment of £30,000 to £40,000 be made to those groups by way of compensation. While Hauraki iwi including Ngati Tamatera submitted further petitions, no such payment was made.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING IN THE NGATI TAMATERA ROHE

2.71 Gold mining had a profound impact on the landscape of the Ngati Tamatera rohe. In the late nineteenth century the main source of energy for the mining industry in the

In itialling version fo r presentation to Ngati Tamatera fo r ratification purposes.


Coromandel, Thames, and Ohinemuri areas was wood cut from the surrounding bush. Much of the bush around Waihi was cleared to support the mining industry.

2.72 In 1895, the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers were proclaimed water courses under section 152 of the Mining Act 1891. This authorised the discharge of mine tailings and other waste into the rivers and the rivers became known as ‘sludge channels’. The tailings were produced by batteries that crushed and processed material extracted from nearby mines. Tailings, including cyanide-treated waste, were deposited in the waterways. Such discharges could render the downstream water unsuitable for human or animal consumption and could kill marine life. The introduction of the cyanide process in 1892 significantly increased the output from stamper batteries in the Ohinemuri catchment.

2.73 The discharge of mining waste into rivers is associated with massive silting in river beds which Ngati Tamatera communities expressed concern about. In 1907, for example, a major flood of the Ohinemuri River was the subject of a petition from Ngati Tamatera who complained about the mining industry discharging deposits for tailings and mining debris, and waste water into riverways affecting the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers. The petition referred to the loss of a suitable water supply, the damage to crops, gardens and pasture on lands adjacent to the river and the loss of an important fishery. All were crucial sources of food which supported the nine Ngati Tamatera communities the petitioners said occupied land along the river. The areas of land occupied by Ngati Tamatera communities were located downstream of the mining activities and outside the land ceded to the Crown for mining purposes.

2.74 In response to the Ngati Tamatera petition, miners insisted that the flood was a natural event and that their industry would suffer if limits were placed on their discharges into the rivers. While the Goldfield’s and Mines Committee considered the petitions and reported that a process should be set up to deal with the silting of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers, no change came about at this time.

2.75 Another major flood in March 1910 on the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers generated more complaints from farmers and Maori, including Ngati Tamatera, living beside the rivers. The Crown subsequently established a commission to investigate the consequence of mine discharges and determine what actions could be taken to deal with any issues. The silting commission appointed on 14 May 1910 heard from 92 witnesses, including some Ngati Tamatera, visited the sites affected, and reviewed other evidence. One Ngati Tamatera witness considered the Crown’s failure to protect Maori lands from the damage caused to the rivers by mining to be a serious breach of the 1875 agreement in which the iwi had ceded mining rights to the Crown.

2.76 The silting commission presented its report in July 1910, concluding that flooding was exacerbated by the discharge of mining waste into the rivers, but that trees planted beside streams, and the increased runoff through the clearance of bushland had aggravated the situation. The commission was “satisfied that material damage” had been done to land located downstream of the mines as a result of the damage caused by the discharge of mine tailings and other waste in accordance with the Crown’s 1895 proclamation making Waihi and Ohinemuri water courses for mining waste. The commission also concluded that the silt-laden water of the Ohinemuri River and lower Waihou River prevented settlers from using the water for stock, but that cyanide or poisons had not seriously affected farmers.



2.77 The commission recommended the Crown establish a rivers board for the catchment area with the exception of the Waihou River mouth, which would continue to be managed by the Thames Harbour Board. Flood control works were to be carried out by the board, funded in part by the Crown. The balance would be contributed by a special levy on mining companies and a rate paid by landowners except the Crown.

2.78 The Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act 1910 provided for a board to manage the rivers within the entire catchment, but this board was never established. Instead, the Public Works Department, authorised to undertake river protection works in the legislation, remained in control of the scheme until 1961. The scheme was funded by the Crown. The Minister of Public Works was also empowered to take land under the Public Works Act 1908 for flood control or watershed protection.

2.79 Between 1903 and 1918, approximately 14 kilometres of the Ohinemuri River bed near Paeroa were dredged and the mine tailings reprocessed. Over 900,000 tonnes of tailings were dealt with in this manner and the waste returned to the river in a finely ground form. Dredging the river proved profitable, but ceased after a major flood in 1918. Mining at Karangahake ended the same year but mining at Waihi continued until 1952.

2.80 Major works were undertaken by the Public Works Department between 1912 and 1932 near Paeroa on the Waihou River downstream of the junction with the Ohinemuri. Stop banks were constructed on the Waihou River downstream of Paeroa, canals were cut below the junction with the Ohinemuri to shorten the flow path of the Waihou, and dredging around the Te Puke wharf was undertaken.

2.81 All these works resulted in significant changes to the rivers and surrounding lands upon which Ngati Tamatera lived and drew traditional resources. These changes compromised the quality of life for communities living beside the rivers. Ngati Tamatera was not consulted about the creation of the flood protection works or the establishment of the various boards that managed them.

THE HAURAKI PLAINS DRAINAGE SCHEME

2.82 The Hauraki Plains are a vast expanse of naturally low-lying swampy land. A complex river system flows through these plains which has formed levees, sand banks and deep peat swamps. Ngati Tamatera established settlements and temporary camps on higher grounds formed by the rivers which were above the flood levels. These wetland areas were a significant source of food for Ngati Tamatera before settlers began altering the landscape in the twentieth century. Tuna and birdlife were caught in the swamps while the plains were also rich in flax, which was used for clothing and shelter.

2.83 A proposal for draining the swamps on the Hauraki Plains was developed from 1899. Initial surveys were completed while the Crown purchased the individual interests of Ngati Tamatera owners and others in the land blocks on the plains. An engineer was appointed in 1907 to prepare a scheme for drainage and reclamation of the Piako swamp. The following year, the Hauraki Plains Act 1908 authorised the Department of Lands and Survey to drain and develop the land.



2.84 The Hauraki Plains drainage scheme had several features. The Piako River was cleared, the Maukoro and Pouarua canals were constructed to control the water flowing from the hills to the west of the plains, an internal drainage system was established, flood gates were installed and stop banks along foreshore and lower reaches of the major rivers were built to prevent tidal overflow and flooding. The scheme also provided for the construction of roads, bridges and wharves to provide access to the land.

2.85 By the 1970s, the land remaining in Ngati Tamatera ownership on the Hauraki Plains was a remnant which had survived the Crown’s land purchase programme of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Between 1908 and 1911, 2000 acres in the Hauraki Plains was acquired from Hauraki Maori under the Hauraki Plains Act 1908 and the Public Works Act.

2.86 Following the period of extensive Crown purchasing in the 1890s and 1900s and the land taken under the Public Works Act for the drainage scheme, Ngati Tamatera was left with little land with which to benefit from the scheme. The draining of the swamps and rivers also took away a food source central to the lives of Ngati Tamatera communities of the plains and destroyed sensitive sites through the construction of railways, roads, drains and stop banks. Between 1978 and the early 1990s land remaining in Maori ownership was subject to a further round of land taking to protect the drainage scheme.

2.87 One of the Ngati Tamatera properties affected by flood protection work in the 1970s was the site of Taharua Marae, near Paeroa. Land was taken for the purposes of realigning stop banks away from the river channel in order to straighten the water course to better protect the township of Paeroa from flooding. To achieve this outcome, the whare at the marae had to be moved to a new site. The hapu agreed to this proposal but refused to allow the urupa to be relocated and the stop bank design was adapted accordingly. The Crown acquired Maori land for the new marae site, vested the property in the marae trustees, undertook the transfer of the whare and completed most of the development works agreed with the hapu. However, Ngati Taharua consider that the infrastructure required for make the marae viable was not provided and has not been used since.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF UNECONOMIC SHARES

2.88 By the mid-twentieth century Ngati Tamatera retained very little of its original landholdings in Hauraki and further land was lost when the Crown allowed the Maori Trustee to compulsorily acquire more land between 1953 and 1974. The Crown sought to address the issue of fragmented land interests by empowering the Maori Trustee to compulsorily purchase uneconomic interests in Ngati Tamatera land between 1953 and 1974. In 1953 the Maori Trustee was empowered to sell the shares to other owners, and in 1967 this power of sale was extended to include other Maori, and certain types of lessees of Maori land. Some individuals with affiliations to Ngati Tamatera who had interests in Moehau lands had those lands compulsorily transferred out of their ownership through the application of the Crown’s uneconomic shares policy. These purchases severed the connections of some Ngati Tamatera to their ancestral land, and deprived them of their turangawaewae.



SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES

2.89 Prior to 1840 Ngati Tamatera spoke te reo Maori fluently. At the end of the nineteenth century many Ngati Tamatera were bilingual, but most spoke te reo Maori as their primary means of communication. The first government Native School in Hauraki opened in 1883. The Crown saw the Native School system in part as a means of assimilating Maori, including Ngati Tamatera, into European culture. Maori children were strongly discouraged from speaking te reo Maori in Crown schools for decades, and were punished if they did. Monolingualism increased in the period 1950-1975, when the effect of education policies was compounded by urbanisation. A new generation of parents were convinced that their children had to speak English to succeed in the Pakeha world. The supremacy of English-language mass media exacerbated this decline of te reo Maori. By 1975 five per cent of Maori children could korero Maori. By the end of the twentieth century, twenty-seven per cent of Hauraki Maori spoke te reo Maori. The decline of te reo Maori contributed to a loss of tikanga Maori knowledge among Ngati Tamatera.

2.90 In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Ngati Tamatera, like other Hauraki Maori, generally experienced poorer health, including lower life-expectancy and higher infant- mortality rates, than Pakeha. Hauraki Maori also experienced higher unemployment and lower mean annual income rates than the general Aotearoa/New Zealand population during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

2 [Translation of historical account in te reo Maori]

2.1 [Note: the te reo Maori translation of the historical account has not yet been finalised so has not been inserted in this part. The te reo Maori translation will be included in the signing version of this deed and this note will be removed]


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND APOLOGY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3.1 The Crown acknowledges that until now it has failed to adequately address the deeply- felt grievances of Ngati Tamatera and recognition of these grievances is long overdue.

3.2 The Crown acknowledges that:

3.2.1 it took 78,000 acres of land in the Tamaki block it considered surplus to those claimed by a settler as a result of a pre-Treaty transaction, including land in which Ngati Tamatera had interests;

3.2.2 a large portion of the "surplus lands" in the Tamaki block were lands that the settler who made the transaction agreed would return to Maori ownership and this has long been a source of grievance for Ngati Tamatera;

3.2.3 it did not provide reserves for Ngati Tamatera or other Marutuahu iwi within the bounds of the Tamaki purchase; and

3.2.4 it failed to require the Tamaki block to be properly surveyed and to require an assessment of the adequacy of lands that Maori held before acquiring the “surplus” in Tamaki, and thereby breached te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

3.3 The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased an extensive area at Mahurangi and Omaha in 1841, including 200,000 acres between Te Arai and Maungauika, it failed to ensure adequate reserves would be protected in the ownership of Ngati Tamatera and this was in breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

3.4 The Crown acknowledges that it failed to obtain the consent of all owners to the establishment of a goldfield on Ngati Matewaru lands at Tokatea in June 1862.


3.5.1 its representatives and advisers acted unjustly and in breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles in sending its forces across the Mangatawhiri in July 1863, and occupying land in which Ngati Tamatera had interests;

3.5.2 in the 1860s Ngati Tamatera never took up arms against the Crown; and

3.5.3 it intimidated Ngati Tamatera by using heavily armed gunboats to blockade TTkapa Moana, and destroying waka.

3.6 The Crown acknowledges that it confiscated land in Waikato in which Ngati Tamatera had interests. This was unjust and a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND APOLOGY

3.7 The Crown further acknowledges that the war and confiscation in Waikato had adevastating effect on the spiritual and material welfare and economy of Ngati Tamatera.

3.8 The Crown acknowledges that it compulsorily and unjustly extinguished NgatiTamatera’s customary interests within the Tauranga confiscation district and theseactions breached te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.


3.9.1 it failed to actively protect Ngati Tamatera interests in lands they wished to retain when it initiated the purchase of Te Puna and Katikati blocks in 1864 without investigating the rights of Ngati Tamatera;

3.9.2 it also failed to actively protect Ngati Tamatera interests in land they wished to retain when it did not provide wahi tapu reserves agreed in the 1866 Te Puna Katikati deed leaving Ngati Tamatera alienated from their ancestral lands in Tauranga; and

3.9.3 these actions breached te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.


3.10.1 it did not consult Ngati Tamatera about the introduction of the native land laws;

3.10.2 the resulting individualisation of land tenure was inconsistent with Ngati Tamatera tikanga;

3.10.3 the operation and impact of the native land laws, in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngati Tamatera rather than to their iwi or hapu, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation;

3.10.4 this contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Ngati Tamatera which were based on collective tribal and hapu custodianship of land;

3.10.5 this had a prejudicial effect on Ngati Tamatera and was a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; and

3.10.6 its failure to provide a legal means for the collective administration of Maori land until 1894 was a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles by failing to actively protect Maori interests in land they may otherwise have wished to retain in communal ownership.




3.11.1 it sought to purchase Ngati Tamatera interests in land blocks before title to the land was determined by the Native Land Court by making payments which sometimes took the form of goods from storekeepers charged against Ngati Tamatera land;

3.11.2 it made these payments knowing that they created severe divisions among Maori of the area;

3.11.3 it agreed to lease the Ohinemuri block from some of the owners in 1875 and assumed control of the leased land without the consent of all of the owners. All the rents payable to Ngati Tamatera were used to repay the advances paid before 1875 even though some of the owners had not accepted any of these advances;

3.11.4 it resumed purchasing Ohinemuri in 1877 despite its commitment in 1875 to refrain from purchasing Ohinemuri lands having influenced the decision of Ngati Tamatera leaders to agree to the 1875 lease;

3.11.5 it used monopoly powers in all negotiations to purchase Ngati Tamatera lands; and

3.11.6 the combined effect of these actions was that the Crown failed to actively protect the interests of Ngati Tamatera, and this was a breach te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

3.12 The Crown acknowledges that valuable mineral resources on lands leased by NgatiTamatera and others provided economic benefits to the nation.


3.13.1 it continued to control lands in Hauraki owned by Ngati Tamatera which were leased to settlers through residence site licences for many years after the decline of the gold mining industry in the region;

3.13.2 it failed for many decades to regularly revise rents for residence site licence lands, and that Ngati Tamatera received rents well below market-value for the lease of their lands as a consequence of this failure;

3.13.3 it promoted legislation that converted residence site licences to leases in perpetuity, leaving Ngati Tamatera no alternative but to have their lands acquired by the Crown; and

3.13.4 these actions deprived Ngati Tamatera of their rangatiratanga over land subject to residence site licences and breached te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.



3.14 The Crown acknowledges that Ngati Tamatera are virtually landless and the Crown’s failure to ensure that they retained sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

3.15 The Crown acknowledges that it established legislation that, between 1953 and 1974, empowered the Maori Trustee to compulsorily acquire shares in Ngati Tamatera land at Moehau that it considered uneconomic. The Crown acknowledges that this deprived some Ngati Tamatera of their turangawaewae and further undermined tribal structures, and was a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

3.16 The Crown acknowledges that environmental changes and pollution since the nineteenth centuryTiave been a source of distress and grievance for Ngati Tamatera. In particular the Crowmacknowledges that:

3.16.1 goldmining activities since 1895 have polluted and degraded the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers, and this has caused significant harm to the health and wellbeing of Ngati Tamatera communities that relied upon the rivers for physical and spiritual sustenance;

3.16.2 Ngati Tamatera could not share in the benefits drainage schemes brought to Hauraki because they owned so little land in the area; and

3.16.3 modifications to the course of the Waihou River and its tributaries since the 1890s have drained resource-rich wetlands, destroyed Ngati Tamatera wahi tapu, and caused significant harm to kaimonana sources relied on by Ngati Tamatera.

3.17 The Crown acknowledges the harm endured by many Ngati Tamatera children from decades of Crown policies that strongly discouraged the use of te Reo Maori in school. The Crown also acknowledges the detrimental effects on Maori language proficiency and fluency and the impact on the inter-generational transmission of te Reo Maori and knowledge of tikanga Maori practices.

3.18 The Crown recognises that through its actions and omissions it has contributed to the economic and spiritual hardship and marginalisation of Ngati Tamatera in its rohe.

3.19 The Crown offers the following apology to Ngati Tamatera, to your tupuna andmokopuna.

3.20 The Crown profoundly regrets its failure to protect Ngati Tamatera from the rapidalienation of your lands in the decades following the signing of te Tiriti o Waitangi/theTreaty of Waitangi, and its invasion of lands south of the Mangatawhiri and subsequentconfiscations of land and resources under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, which had a crippling impact on the welfare, economy, and development of Ngati Tamatera.

APOLOGY

25



3.21 The Crown has promoted laws and policies that caused Ngati Tamatera enduring harm through the alienation of whenua in the face of Ngati Tamatera protest, the loss of Ngati Tamatera rangatiratanga over lands in gold mining districts subject to resident site licenses, the pollution of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers due to gold mining, the draining of the Hauraki wetlands, and the loss of your taonga te reo Maori. For the prejudice it has caused Ngati Tamatera, and its breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, the Crown unreservedly apologises.

3.22 Through this settlement the Crown hopes to begin a new relationship with Ngati Tamatera, forged in the spirit of partnership, cooperation, and respect for te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.



3 [Translation of acknowledgements and apology in te reo Maori]

3.1 [Note: the te reo Maori translation of the acknowledgements and apology has not yet been finalised so has not been inserted in this part. The te reo Maori translation will be included in the signing version of this deed and this note will be removed]


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

4 SETTLEMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4.1 Each party acknowledges that -

4.1.1 the Crown has to set limits on what, and how much, redress is available tosettle the historical claims; and

4.1.2 it is not possible to -

(a) fully assess the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Tamatera as a result of the events on which the historical claims are based; or

(b) fully compensate Ngati Tamatera for all loss and prejudice suffered; and

4.1.3 the settlement is intended to enhance the ongoing relationship between NgatiTamatera and the Crown (in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty ofWaitangi, its principles, and otherwise).

4.2 Ngati Tamatera acknowledge that, taking all matters into consideration (some of whichare specified in clause 4.1), the settlement is fair, and the best that can be achieved, inthe circumstances.

SETTLEMENT

4.3 Therefore, on and from the settlement date, -

4.3.1 the historical claims are settled; and

4.3.2 the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of the historical claims; and

4.3.3 the settlement is final.

4.4 Except as provided in this deed or the settlement legislation, the parties’ rights and obligations remain unaffected.

4.5 Without limiting clause 4.4, nothing in this deed or the settlement legislation will -

4.5.1 extinguish or limit any aboriginal title or customary right that Ngati Tamateramay have; or

4.5.2 constitute or imply any acknowledgement by the Crown that any aboriginaltitle or customary right exists; or

4.5.3 except as provided in this deed or settlement legislation -


DEED OF SETTLEMENT4: SETTLEMENT

affect a right that Ngati Tamatera may have, including a right arising:

(i) from Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles;or

(ii) under legislation; or

(iii) at or recognised by common law (including common law relatingto aboriginal title or customary law or tikanga); or

(iv) from fiduciary duty; or

(v) otherwise; or

affect any action or decision under the deed of settlement betweenMaori and the Crown dated 23 September 1992 in relation to Maorifishing claims; or

affect any action or decision under any legislation and, in particular,under legislation giving effect to the deed of settlement referred to inclause 4.5.3(b), including:

(i) the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992; or

(ii) the Fisheries Act 1996; or

(iii) the Maori Fisheries Act 2004; or

(iv) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004;or

(d) affect any rights Ngati Tamatera may have to obtain recognition in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, including recognition of the following:

(i) protected customary rights (as defined in that Act):

(ii) customary marine title (as defined in that Act).

4.6 Clause 4.5 does not limit clause 4.3.

REDRESS

4.7 The redress, to be provided in settlement of the historical claims, -

4.7.1 is intended to benefit Ngati Tamatera collectively; but



4.7.2 may benefit particular members, or particular groups of members, of NgatiTamatera if the governance entity so determines in accordance with the governance entity’s procedures.

IMPLEMENTATION

4.8 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 13 to 18 of the draft settlement bill, -

4.8.1 settle the historical claims; and

4.8.2 exclude the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or other judicial body in relationto the historical claims and the settlement; and

4.8.3 provide that the legislation referred to in section 15(2) of the draft settlementbill does not apply -

(a) to -

(i) a redress property;

(ii) a commercial property if settlement of that property has beeneffected;

(iii) the purchased second right of purchase property if settlement of that property has been effected;

(iv) the purchased deferred selection properties if settlement of those properties has been effected;

(v) the Pouarua Farm property; or

(vi) any Aotea RFR land disposed of under a contract formed undersection 159 of the draft settlement bill; or

(b) for the benefit of Ngati Tamatera or a representative entity; and

4.8.4 require any resumptive memorial to be removed from a certificate of title to, or a computer register for the following properties -

(a) a redress property;

(b) a commercial property if settlement of that property has been effected;

(c) the purchased second right of purchase property if settlement of that property has been effected;



(d) the purchased deferred selection properties if settlement of those properties has been effected;

(e) the Pouarua Farm property; or

(f) any Aotea RFR land disposed of under a contract formed under section159 of the draft settlement bill; and

4.8.5 provide that the rule against perpetuities and the Perpetuities Act 1964 does not -

(a) apply to a settlement document; or

(b) prescribe or restrict the period during which -

(i) the trustees of the Ngati Tamatera Treaty Settlement Trust, beingthe governance entity, may hold or deal with property; and

(ii) the Ngati Tamatera Treaty Settlement Trust may exist; and

4.8.6 require the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice to make copies of this deed publicly available.

4.9 Part 1 of the general matters schedule provides for other action in relation to the settlement.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

5 CULTURAL REDRESS

CULTURAL REDRESS PROPERTIES VESTED IN THE GOVERNANCE ENTITY

5.1 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20 to 42, 52, 62 to 70A and 75 of the draft settlement bill, vest in the governance entity on the settlement date -

Aotea

5.1.1 the fee simple estate in Te Rohu, being Hilltop Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Te Rohu Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

5.1.2 the fee simple estate in Rangitawhiri, being part of Aotea Conservation Park, as a recreation reserve named Rangitawhiri Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

Moehau

5.1.3 the fee simple estate in each of the following sites, with the governance entity as the administering body:

(a) Pauhu, being part of Fantail Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Pauhu Reserve, subject to -

(i) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.1 of the documents schedule; and

(ii) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:

(b) O-kaharoa ki waenganui site B, being part of Fletcher Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named O-kaharoa ki waenganui Reserve, subject to -

(i) the governance entity providing a registrable right of wayeasement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part7.2 of the documents schedule;

(ii) the governance entity providing a registrable easement in gross for a walkway in relation to that property in the form in part 7.3 of the documents schedule; and


DEED OF SETTLEMENT5: CULTURAL REDRESS

(iii) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:

(c) O-kaharoa-ma-whiti, being part of Stony Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named O-kaharoa-ma-whiti Reserve, subject to -

(i) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part7.4 of the documents schedule;

(ii) the governance entity providing a registrable easement in gross for a walkway in relation to that property in the form in part 7.3 of the documents schedule; and

(iii) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:

(d) Karuhiruhi, being part of Stony Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Karuhiruhi Reserve subject to a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:

(e) Whakaangi, being part of Stony Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Whakaangi Reserve, subject to -

(i) the governance entity providing a registrable easement for a right to store and convey water in relation to that property in the form in part 7.5 of the documents schedule;

(ii) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part7.6 of the documents schedule;

(iii) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part7.7 of the documents schedule; and

(iv) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:

(f) Tapapakaroro, being part of Sandy Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Tapapakaroro Reserve subject to a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill:



(g) O-kahu-tai, being part of Sandy Bay Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named O-kahu-tai Reserve, subject to -

(i) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part7.8 of the documents schedule; and

(ii) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draft settlement bill; and

[Drafting in clause 5.1.3(g) subject to the protection of affordable camping opportunities. Mechanism to be confirmed]

5.1.4 the fee simple estate in O-kaharoa ki waenganui site A, being part of Fletcher Bay Recreation Reserve, subject to -

(a) the governance entity providing a restrictive covenant in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.9 of the documents schedule;

(b) the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement ingross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.2 of the documentsschedule; and

(c) a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pestcontrol purposes on the terms provided by section 70A of the draftsettlement bill; and

5.1.5 the fee simple estate in Urarima, being part of Moehau Ecological Area and part of Coromandel Forest Park and, under [sections 19 to 27] of the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress legislation, Urarima, Moehau Tupuna Maunga and Moehau Area (as those properties are described in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress legislation) will together comprise a government purpose (Pare Hauraki whenua kura and ecological sanctuary) reserve named Moehau Tupuna Maunga Reserve -

(a) with the joint body established under [section 23] of the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress legislation to be the administering body of the reserve; and

(b) with any improvements in or on the property not vesting in the governance entity and [section 25] of the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress legislation will apply to the improvements; and

Waikawau Bay

5.1.6 the fee simple estate in the Waikanae property, being part of Waikawau Bay Farmpark Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Waikanae Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body, and the Crown



will provide a registrable easement for a right to convey water in relation to that property in the form in part 7.10 of the documents schedule; and

Otautu

5.1.7 the fee simple estate in Horapupara; and

Papa Aroha

5.1.8 the fee simple estate in Papa-aroha, being part of Papa Aroha Scenic Reserve, as a scenic reserve named Papa-aroha Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

Thames Coast

5.1.9 the fee simple estate in Te Karaka property, but this vesting -

(a) will only occur if, prior to the settlement date the caveat with instrument number 8571237.1, South Auckland Land Registration District registered against this property, has been withdrawn in accordance with section 147 of the Land Transfer Act 1952; and

(b) will not include the improvements in or on this property; and

5.1.10 the fee simple estate in Te Maunga Mau-paki, being part of Papakai Ecological Area and part of Coromandel Forest Park, subject to the governance entity providing a registrable conservation covenant in relation to that property in the form in part 7.11 of the documents schedule; and

5.1.11 the fee simple estate in Te Rauwhitiora as a recreation reserve named Te Rauwhitiora Reserve, -

(a) with a joint management body as the administering body, the members of which will be appointed by the governance entity and the Thames- Coromandel District Council; but

(b) if, on the settlement date, any part of the land shown marked B on OTS-403-59 (subject to survey) has the status of Crown Land subject to the Land Act 1948, then that part of the land will be included as part of Te Rauwhitiora and that property will be the property described in part 2 of schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill; and

5.1.12 the fee simple estate in Waipatukahu as a recreation reserve named Waipatukahu Reserve, with a joint management body as the administering body, the members of which will be appointed by the governance entity and the Thames-Coromandel District Council; and



5.1.13 the fee simple estate in Wai-o-umu, being part of Waiomu Recreation Reserve, as a recreation reserve named Wai-o-umu Reserve, with a joint management body as the administering body, the members of which will be appointed by the governance entity and the Thames-Coromandel District Council; and

5.1.14 the fee simple estate in Te Aputa, being part of Te Puru Scenic Reserve, as a scenic reserve named Te Aputa Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

5.1.15 the fee simple estate in Te waha o Te Parata as a recreation reserve named Te waha o Te Parata Reserve, with a joint management body as the administering body, the members of which will be appointed by the governance entity and the Thames-Coromandel District Council; and

Ohinemuri

5.1.16 the fee simple estate in Te Kahakaha, being part of Coromandel Forest Park, as a scenic reserve named Te Kahakaha Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

5.1.17 the fee simple estate in Waitawheta, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park, as a scenic reserve named Waitawheta Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

Homunga Bay

5.1.18 the fee simple estate in Homunga, being part of Orokawa Scenic Reserve, as a scenic reserve named Homunga Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body.

5.2 Each of the properties referred to in clauses 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 are part of an area known as Cape Colville Farm Park.

5.2A The joint management body established by section 75 of the draft settlement bill will also administer the Crown Land described in part 3 of schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill as the “Additional Reserve Land” at Waipatukahu, as shown on the plan in Part 4 of the attachments, on the terms provided in section 75 and 76 of the draft settlement bill.

5.3 The governance entity will invite the Thames-Coromandel District Council to broaden the existing co-governance arrangements as provided in clauses 5.1.12 and 5.1.13 to include Thames-Coromandel District Council-owned land adjacent to Waipatukahu and Wai-o-umu to more effectively manage those properties.



JOINT CULTURAL REDRESS PROPERTIES VESTED IN THE GOVERNANCE ENTITY AND OTHER GOVERNANCE ENTITIES

Kauri Point - Joint vesting with Ngai Te Rangi

5.4 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 43 to 48, 62, 64 to69, and 79 of the draft settlement bill, provide that —

5.4.1 the fee simple estate in the Kauri Point property, being part of Kauri Point Historic Reserve, will vest as undivided half shares, with each one half share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:

(a) the governance entity:

(b) the trustees of the Ngai Te Rangi Settlement Trust; and

5.4.2 the Kauri Point property will vest on the later of the following dates -

(a) the settlement date; and

(b) the settlement date under the Ngai Te Rangi and Nga Potiki settlementlegislation; and

5.4.3 the Kauri Point property is to be a historic reserve named the Kauri Point Historic Reserve; and

5.4.4 the Western Bay of Plenty District Council will be the administering body for the reserve as if the council were appointed to control and manage the reserve under section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

5.4.5 owners means the persons in whom the Kauri Point property is vested under clause 5.4.1; and

5.4.6 in relation to the Kauri Point property, while the Western Bay of Plenty District Council is the administering body -

(a) if the reserve management plan applying to this property is reviewed, the owners and the council will jointly prepare and approve a separate reserve management plan for this property; and

(b) despite the Western Bay of Plenty District Council being the administering body, the owners may grant, accept or decline any interest in land that affects the property, or may renew or vary such an interest in land that affects the property; and

(c) before the owners determine an application by any person for an interest in land in the property, the owners must consult with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council; and



5.4.7 the improvements owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and attached to the Kauri Point property as at the date of its vesting remain vested in the Western Bay of Plenty District Council; and

5.4.8 the Kauri Point property must not be transferred, other than to a new trustee of a trust, the trustees of which hold the fee simple estate in the property.

5.5 Clause 5.6 applies if, following the vesting of the Kauri Point property under the settlement legislation, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council ceases to control and manage the Kauri Point property.

5.6 The governance entity may, either jointly with the trustees of the Ngai Te Rangi Settlement Trust or alone, discuss the management of the council-owned land adjacent to the Kauri Point property with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council.

5.7 In clause 5.6, council-owned land means 0.2806 hectares, more or less, being Sections 1, 2 and 3 Block III Village of Te Kauri. All computer freehold register SA26D/919.

Nga Tukituki a Hikawera and Tangitu - Joint vestings with Ngati Maru and Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu

5.8 The settlement legislation will, in relation to each property referred to in clause 5.8, on the terms provided by sections 20, 54, 58, 62, 63, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.8.1 on the settlement date, the fee simple estate in each property will vest as undivided third shares, with one third share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:


(b) the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust:

(c) the trustees of the Ngati Tumutumu Trust; and

5.8.2 the vestings of Nga Tukituki a Hikawera and Tangitu referred to in clause5.8.1 are subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.8.1(b) and (c) jointly providing a registrable conservation covenant in relation to each of these properties in the forms in parts 7.12 and 7.13 of the documents schedule; and

5.8.3 the vesting of Tangitu referred to in clause 5.8.1 is subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.8.1(b) and (c) jointly providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.14 of the documents schedule.



5.9 Clause 5.8 applies to the following properties:

5.9.1 Nga Tukituki a Hikawera, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park:

5.9.2 TangitG, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park.

Pukewhakataratara, Takaihuehue, Paewai - Joint vestings with Ngati Mam

5.10 The settlement legislation will, in relation to each property referred to in clause 5.11, on the terms provided by sections 20, 55 to 57, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.10.1 on the settlement date, the fee simple estate in each property will vest asundivided half shares, with one half share vested in each of the following astenants in common:


(b) the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust;

5.10.2 the vestings referred to in clause 5.10.1 are subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.10.1(b) jointly providing a registrable conservation covenant in relation to each of those properties in the forms in parts 7.16, 7.18 and 7.19 of the documents schedule; and

5.10.3 the vesting of Pukewhakataratara referred to in clause 5.10.1 is subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.10.1(b) jointly providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.17 of the documents schedule.

5.11 Clause 5.10 applies to the following properties:

5.11.1 Pukewhakataratara, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park:

5.11.2 Takaihuehue, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park:

5.11.3 Paewai, being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park.

Whakamoehau - Joint vesting with Ngati Mam

5.12 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 61, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that, -

5.12.1 on the settlement date, the fee simple estate in Whakamoehau, being part of Coromandel Forest Park, will vest as undivided half shares, with one half share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:




(b) the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust; and

5.12.2 the vesting of Whakamoehau is subject to the governance entity and thetrustees referred to in clause 5.12.1(b) jointly providing a registrable conservation covenant in relation to that property in part 7.15 of the form in the documents schedule.

Tiroa - Joint vesting with Ngati Maru

5.13 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 51, 62, 63, 65 to 69 and 74 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.13.1 on the settlement date, the fee simple estate in Tiroa will vest as undivided half shares, with one half share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:


(b) the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust; and

5.13.2 Tiroa is to be a scenic reserve named Tiroa Scenic Reserve; and

5.13.3 a joint management body will be established which will be the administering body for the reserve.

[Karangahake Tihi\ - Joint vesting with Hako and Ngati Tara Tokanui

5.14 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 53, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.14.1 on the settlement date the fee simple estate in [Karangahake Tihi], being part of Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park, will vest as undivided third shares, with one third share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:


(b) the trustees of the Hako Tupuna Trust:

(c) the trustees of the Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust; and

5.14.2 the vesting of [Karangahake Tihi] is subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.14.1(b) and (c) jointly providing -

(a) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.20 of the documents schedule; and

(b) a registrable conservation covenant in relation to that property in the form in part 7.21 of the documents schedule.



5.15 Despite clause 5.14, in relation to [Karangahake Tihi], if the settlement date and the settlement date under the Hako settlement legislation are not the same date, that property will vest on the later of those settlement dates.

Tokatea - Jo in t vesting with Te Patukirikiri

5.16 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 60, 60A, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.16.1 on the settlement date, the fee simple estate in Tokatea will vest as undividedhalf shares, with one half vested in each of the following as tenants incommon:


(b) the trustees of the Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust; and

5.16.2 the vesting of Tokatea is subject to the governance entity and the trusteesreferred to in clause 5.16.1(b) jointly providing -

(a) a registrable conservation covenant in relation to that property in the form in part 7.22 of the documents schedule; and

(b) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.23 of the documents schedule; and

5.16.3 in relation to Tokatea-

(a) the owners will not be liable for contamination of any land or othernatural and physical resources i f -

(i) the contamination is in, or originates from, mining shafts andtunnels on Tokatea; and

(ii) the liability would arise only because of the ownership ofTokatea; and

(b) clause 5.16.3(a) does not exclude liability for contamination to the extent that the owners’ intentional, reckless, or negligent act [or omission] caused the contamination; and

(c) clause 5.16.3 applies despite any other enactment or rule of law; and

(d) in clause 5.16.3(a) to 5.16.3(c) -

(i) natural and physical resources has the meaning given bysection 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; and



(ii) owners means the persons in whom Tokatea is vested, as referred to in clause 5.16.1.

[Drafting to be confirmed]

Te Tihi o Hauturu - Jo in t vesting with Ngati Pukenga and Ngati Maru

5.17 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 59, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.17.1 the fee simple estate in Te Tihi o Hauturu, being part of Coromandel Forest Park, will vest as undivided third shares, with one third share vested in each of the following as tenants in common:


(b) the trustees of the Te Tawharau o Ngati PGkenga Trust:

(c) the trustees of the Ngati Maru RGnanga Trust; and

5.17.2 the vesting of Te Tihi o Hauturu is subject to the governance entity and the trustees referred to in clause 5.17.1(b) and (c) jointly providing a registrable conservation covenant in relation to that property in the form in part 7.24 of the documents schedule; and

5.17.3 Te Tihi o Hauturu will vest on the later of the following dates -

(a) the settlement date; and

(b) the settlement date under the Ngati PGkenga Claims Settlement Act2017.

5.18 The parties record that access to Te Tihi o Hauturu is provided by the conservation covenant registered over Pae ki Hauraki and over adjacent public conservation land.

PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO CERTAIN CULTURAL REDRESS PROPERTIES

5.19 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by section 84 of the draft settlement bill, provide that each cultural redress property referred to in clause 5.20 be included in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

5.20 Clause 5.19 applies in relation to each of the following cultural redress properties:

5.20.1 Pauhu:

5.20.2 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site B:


DEED OF SETTLEMENT5:

5.20.3 O-kaharoa-ma-whiti

5.20.4 Karuhiruhi:

5.20.5 Whakaangi:

5.20.6 Tapapakaroro:

5.20.7 O-kahu-tai:

5.20.8 Waikanae property:

5.20.9 Papa-aroha:

5.20.10 Te Aputa.

5: CULTURAL REDRESS

5.21 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 71 and 72 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.21.1 each of the following properties must be treated as if its land were included in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991:

(a) Te Rohu:

(b) Rangitawhiri:

(c) Pauhu:

(d) O-kaharoa ki waenganui

(e) O-kaharoa ki waenganui

(f) O-kaharoa-ma-whiti:

(g) Karuhiruhi:

(h) Whakaangi:

(i) Tapapakaroro:

(j) O-kahu-tai:

(k) Urarima:

(I) Waikanae property:



(m) Papa-aroha:

(n) Te Maunga Mau-paki:

(o) Waipatukahu:

(P) Wai-o-umu:

(q) Te Aputa:

(r) Te waha o Te Parata:

(s) Tokatea:

(t)"s. Te Tihi o Hauturu:

(U) V)/aikawau property:

(V) Te Rauwhitiora; and

5.21.2 to the extent relevant, section 61(1 A) and (2) (except subsection (2)(db)) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 applies to each of the properties specified in clause 5.21.1; and

5.21.3 for the purposes of clause 5.21.2, reference to -

(a) a Minister or Ministers or to the Crown (but not the reference to a Crown owned mineral) must be read as a reference to the governance entity; and

(b) a Crown owned mineral must be read as including a reference to the minerals vested in the governance entity by section 137 of the draft settlement bill; and

5.21.4 clauses 5.21.1 to 5.21.3 do not apply if the Governor-General, by Order in Council made in accordance with section 72 of the draft settlement bill, declares that any or all of the properties specified in clause 5.21.1 are no longer to be treated as if the land were included in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

5.22 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 36A, 39A and 40Aof the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.22.1 despite the vestings of the following properties, the improvements owned by the Thames-Coromandel District Council and attached to those properties as at the date of the vestings will remain vested in the Thames-Coromandel District Council and sections 36A, 39A and 40A of the draft settlement bill will apply to those improvements:



(a) Waipatukahu:

(b) Wai-o-umu:

(c) Te waha o Te Parata; and

5.22.2 despite the provisions of sections 36A, 39A and 40A of the draft settlement bill, the governance entity is not liable for an improvement for which it would, apart from those sections, be liable by reason of its ownership of those properties.

GENERAL PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO ALL CULTURAL REDRESS PROPERTIES

5.23 Each cultural redress property is to be -

5.23.1 as described in schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill; and

5.23.2 vested on the terms provided by -

(a) sections 20 to 84 of the draft settlement bill; and

(b) part 2 of the property redress schedule; and

5.23.3 subject to any encumbrances, or other documentation, in relation to that property -

(a) required by clauses 5.1, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, 5.16 and 5.17 to be provided by the governance entity; or

(b) required by the settlement legislation[, as provided by sections [ ] of the draft settlement bill]; and

[Drafting in subclause (b) is subject to confirmation prior to this deed being signed]

(c) in particular, referred to by schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill.

CULTURAL PROPERTY

Waikawau

5.24 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 20, 22, 62, and 65 to 69 of the draft settlement bill, provide that the fee simple estate in the Waikawau property, being part of Waikawau Recreation Reserve, vests in the governance entity on the settlement date, subject to the governance entity providing:



5.24.1 a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.25 of the documents schedule; and

5.24.2 a registrable right of way easement in relation to that property in favour of theregistered proprietors of the land contained in computer freehold registerSA30D/926 in the form in part 7.26 of the documents schedule.

5.25 The governance entity will, in relation to the Waikawau property, if practicable -

5.25.1 provide and maintain, in accordance with terms provided in section 22 of the draft settlement bill, boat launching facilities (including parking, taking intoaccount any relevant consents or licences) for the benefit of the public,provided that all necessary resource consents have been granted in relation to the facilities; and

5.25.2 permit public foot access at all times, in accordance with terms provided in section 22 of the draft settlement bill, subject to a right in favour of the governance entity to restrict access to the parts of the property not utilised for the boat ramp from time to time for the purposes of carrying out cultural activities.

5.26 The Waikawau property is to be -

5.26.1 as described in schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill; and

5.26.2 vested on the terms provided by -

(a) sections 20, 22, 62, 65 to 70, 71 and 72 of the draft settlement bill; and

(b) part 2 of the property redress schedule; and

5.26.3 subject to any encumbrances, or other documentation, in relation to that property -

(a) required by clause 5.24 to be provided by the governance entity; or

(b) required by the settlement legislation^ as provided by sections [ ] of thedraft settlement bill]; and

[Drafting in subclause (b) is subject to confirmation prior to this deed being signed]

(c) in particular, referred to by schedule 1 of the draft settlement bill.

CROWN MINERALS

5.27 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by subpart 2 of part 3 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -



5.28

5.29

5.30

5.31

5.32

5.27.1 despite section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (minerals reserved to the Crown) any Crown owned minerals in any cultural redress property or the Waikawau property vested under the settlement legislation, vest with, and form part of, that property; but

5.27.2 that vesting does not -

(a) limit section 10 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (petroleum, gold, silver and uranium); or

(b) affect other existing lawful rights to subsurface minerals.

The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by subpart 2 of part 3 of the draft settlement bill, provide that any minerals in the cultural redress properties referred to in clauses 5.4 to 5.17 that would have been reserved to the Crown by section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (but for clause 5.27.1) will be owned by the governance entity in the same proportions in which the fee simple estate is held by it.

Sections 140 to 149 of the draft settlement bill establish a regime for the payment of royalties received by the Crown, in the previous 8 years, in respect of the vested minerals to which clause 5.27 applies.

The Crown acknowledges, to avoid doubt, that it has no property in any minerals existing in their natural condition in Maori customary land (as defined in Te TureWhenua Maori Act 1993), other than those minerals referred to in section 10 of theCrown Minerals Act 1991 or if provided in any other enactment.

VEST AND VEST BACK OF REPANGA (CUVIER) ISLAND NATURE RESERVE

In clauses 5.32 and 5.33, Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve has the meaning given to it by section 85 of the draft settlement bill.

The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 85 to 87 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

5.32.1 on the vesting date, the fee simple estate of Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve vests in the following:


(b) the trustees of the Hei o Wharekaho Settlement Trust:

(c) the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust:

(d) the trustees of the Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust; and

5.32.2 on the seventh day after the vesting date, the fee simple estate in Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve vests back in the Crown; and



5.32.3 the following matters apply as if the vestings in clauses 5.32.1 and 5.32.2 had not occurred -

(a) Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve remains a nature reserve under the Reserves Act 1977; and

(b) any enactment, instrument or interest that applied to Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve immediately before the vesting date continues to apply to it; and

(c) to the extent that the overlay classification applies to Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve immediately before the vesting date, it continues to apply to the property; and

(d) the Crown retains all liability for Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve; and

5.32.4 the vestings in clauses 5.32.1 and 5.32.2 are not affected by part 4A of the Conservation Act 1987, section 10 or 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, section 11 or part 10 of the Resource Management Act 1991, or any other enactment that relates to the land; and

5.32.5 the vesting referred to in clause 5.32.1 is not a disposal of RFR land under the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress legislation.

Vesting date

5.33 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by section 86 of the draft settlement bill, provide that, -

5.33.1 the governance entity and the trustees specified in clause 5.32.1(b) to (d) (specified trustees) may give written notice of the proposed date of vesting to the Minister of Conservation; and

5.33.2 the proposed date must not be later than one year after the settlement date; and

5.33.3 the specified trustees must give the Minister at least 40 business days’ notice of the proposed date; and

5.33.4 the Minister must publish a notice in the Gazette -

(a) specifying the vesting date; and

(b) stating that the fee simple estate in Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve vests in the specified trustees on the vesting date; and

5.33.5 for the purposes of clauses 5.32 and 5.33, vesting date means -



(a) the date proposed by the specified trustees in accordance with clauses5.33.1 to 5.33.3; or

(b) the date one year after the settlement date, if no date is proposed.

OVERLAY CLASSIFICATION

5.34 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 88 to 102 of the draft settlement bill, -

5.34.1 declare Repanga (Cuvier) Island Nature Reserve (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-66) as an overlay area subject to an overlay classification; and

5.34.2 provide the Crown’s acknowledgement of the statement of Ngati Tamatera values in relation to that overlay area; and

5.34.3 require the New Zealand Conservation Authority, or a relevant conservation board, -

(a) when considering a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan or national park management plan, in relation to the overlay area, to have particular regard to the statement of Ngati Tamatera values, and the protection principles, for the overlay area; and

(b) before approving a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan or national park management plan, in relation to the overlay area, to -

(i) consult with the governance entity; and

(ii) have particular regard to its views as to the effect of the strategyor plan on Ngati Tamatera values, and the protection principles,for the area; and

5.34.4 require the Director-General of Conservation to take action in relation to the protection principles; and

5.34.5 enable the making of regulations and bylaws in relation to the overlay area.

5.35 The statement of Ngati Tamatera values, the protection principles, and the Director-General’s actions are in part 1 of the documents schedule.

STATUTORY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

5.36 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 103 to 111, and 113 to 116 of the draft settlement bill, -



5.36.1 provide the Crown’s acknowledgement of the statements by Ngati Tamatera of their particular cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with the following areas:

(a) Kuaotunu property (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-71):

(b) Mercury Islands (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-67):

(c) Ohinemuri River and its tributaries (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-68):

(d) Whangapoua Conservation Area (Part Aotea Conservation Park) (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-70):

(e) ParitG (being Fantail Bay Recreation Reserve) (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-69); and

5.36.2 require relevant consent authorities, the Environment Court, and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to have regard to the statutory acknowledgement; and

5.36.3 require relevant consent authorities to forward to the governance entity -

(a) summaries of resource consent applications within, adjacent to or directly affecting a statutory area; and

(b) a copy of a notice of a resource consent application served on the consent authority under section 145(10) of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

5.36.4 enable the governance entity, and any member of Ngati Tamatera, to cite the statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngati Tamatera with an area.

5.37 The statements of association are in part 2 of the documents schedule.

DEED OF RECOGNITION

5.38 The Crown must, by or on the settlement date, provide the governance entity with a copy of a deed of recognition, signed by the Minister of Conservation and the Director- General of Conservation, in relation to the Whangapoua Conservation Area (Part Aotea Conservation Park) (as shown on deed plan OTS-403-70).

5.39 The area that the deed of recognition relates to includes only those parts of the area owned and managed by the Crown.



5.40 The deed of recognition will provide that the Minister of Conservation and the Director- General of Conservation must, if undertaking certain activities within an area that the deed relates to, -

5.40.1 consult the governance entity; and

5.40.2 have regard to its views concerning the association of Ngati Tamatera with the area as described in the statement of association.

PROTOCOLS

5.41 Each of the following protocols must, by or on the settlement date, be signed and issued to the governance entity by the responsible Minister or that Minister’s delegated representative:

5.41.1 the primary industries protocol:

5.41.2 the taonga tuturu protocol.

5.42 The protocols set out how the Crown will interact with the governance entity with regard to the matters specified in them.

FORM AND EFFECT OF DEED OF RECOGNITION AND PROTOCOLS

5.43 The deed of recognition will be -

5.43.1 in the form in part 5 of the documents schedule; and

5.43.2 issued under, and subject to, the terms provided by sections 103, 112, 114 and 115 of the draft settlement bill.

5.44 Each protocol will be -

5.44.1 in the form in part 6 of the documents schedule; and

5.44.2 issued under, and subject to, the terms provided by sections 117 to 122 of the draft settlement bill.

5.45 A failure by the Crown to comply with the deed of recognition, or a protocol, is not a breach of this deed.

CONSERVATION RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENT

5.46 The parties must use reasonable endeavours to agree, and enter into, a conservation relationship agreement by the settlement date.



5.47 The conservation relationship agreement must be entered into by the governance entity and the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation.

5.48 A party is not in breach of this deed if the conservation relationship agreement has not been entered into by the settlement date if, on that date, the party is negotiating in good faith in an attempt to enter into it.

5.49 A failure by the Crown to comply with the conservation relationship agreement is not a breach of this deed.

RUAMAAHUA

5.50 The Crown will consider the operation of the Grey-Faced Petrel (Northern Muttonbird) Notice 1979 as it applies to Ruamaahua regarding its alignment with the current titi season. The Crown acknowledges the significance of Ruamaahua to Ngati Tamatera. The Crown intends that any redress over Ruamaahua provided in a Treaty settlement will include Ngati Tamatera.

PROMOTION OF RELATIONSHIPS

Local authorities

5.51 By not later than six months after the settlement date, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will write a letter (letter of facilitation), in the form set out in part 9 of the documents schedule, to the Mayor of each local authority listed in clause 5.53.

5.52 The purpose of a letter of facilitation is to -

5.52.1 raise the profile of Ngati Tamatera with each local authority receiving it; and

5.52.2 advise the local authority of matters of particular importance to Ngati Tamatera relevant to that local authority.

5.53 The local authorities referred to in clause 5.51 are:

5.53.1 Auckland Council:

5.53.2 Hauraki District Council:

5.53.3 Thames-Coromandel District Council:

5.53.4 Waikato Regional Council:

5.53.5 Matamata-Piako District Council:

5.53.6 Waikato District Council:

5.54

5.55

5.56

5.57

5.58

_______________________ DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________5: CULTURAL REDRESS

5.53.7 Western Bay of Plenty District Council:

5.53.8 Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Crown agencies

By not later than six months after the settlement date, the Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements will write a letter (letter of introduction), in the form set out in part10 of the documents schedule, to the Chief Executive of each Crown agency listed in clause 5.56, introducing Ngati Tamatera and the governance entity.

The purpose of a letter of introduction is to -

5.55.1 raise the profile of Ngati Tamatera with each Crown agency receiving it; and

5.55.2 provide a platform for better engagement between Ngati Tamatera and each Crown agency.

The Crown agencies referred to in clause 5.54 are:

5.56.1 Department of Internal Affairs:

5.56.2 Ministry of Education:

5.56.3 Ministry of Health:

5.56.4 Ministry of Social Development:

5.56.5 Te Puni Kokiri:

5.56.6 Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki:

5.56.7 New Zealand Police.

Museums

By not later than six months after the settlement date, the Minister for Treaty ofWaitangi Negotiations will write a letter (letter to museums), in the form set out in part11 of the documents schedule, to the Chief Executive of each museum listed in clause 5.59.

The purpose of a letter to museums is to -

5.58.1 raise the profile of Ngati Tamatera with each museum receiving it; and


5.58.2 encourage each museum to engage with Ngati Tamatera on Ngati Tamatera taonga held by those museums.



5.59 The museums referred to in clause 5.57 are:

5.59.1 Tamaki Paenga Hira - Auckland War Memorial Museum:

5.59.2 Waikato Museum:

5.59.3 Tauranga Heritage Collection:

5.59.4 Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa:

5.59.5 Canterbury Museum:

5.59.6 Otago Museum:

5.59.7 The British Museum:

5.59.8 University of Chicago Oriental Institute:

5.59.9 Musee du quai Branly:

5.59.10 [Local museums - to be agreed and inserted before signing ].

STATEMENTS OF ASSOCIATION

5.60 The parties acknowledge that section 17 of the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 applies to the statements of association in part 3 of the documents schedule in relation to the following:

5.60.1 Maungauika:

5.60.2 Rarotonga:

5.60.3 Maungakiekie:

5.60.4 Maungarei:

5.60.5 Maungawhau:

5.60.6 Mount St John:

5.60.7 Ohinerau:

5.60.8 Ohuiarangi:

5.60.9 Otahuhu:



5.60.10 Takarunga.

5.61 The Crown acknowledges that Ngati Tamatera has an association with, and asserts certain spiritual, cultural, historical and traditional values in relation to the following:

5.61.1 Nga Turehu o Moehau:

5.61.2 Waikawau:

5.61.3 Motukorea (Browns Island):

5.61.4 Hauraki Gulf / TTkapa Moana:

5.61.5 Puna at Waiora and Paeroa:

5.61.6 Moehau and Te Aroha Maunga.

5.62 The statements by Ngati Tamatera of their associations and values in relation to the areas referred to in clause 5.61 are set out in part 4 of the documents schedule.

5.63 The parties acknowledge that the acknowledgement in clause 5.61, and the statements referred to in clause 5.62, are not intended to give rise to any rights or obligations.

CULTURAL REDRESS PAYMENT

5.64 The Crown must pay $277,000 to the governance entity on the settlement date and the government entity may, at its discretion, apply all or some of that amount towards cultural revitalisation.

AHUAHU I GREAT MERCURY ISLAND

5.65 The Crown acknowledges that Ahuahu / Great Mercury Island is of cultural significance to Ngati Tamatera and has acknowledged a Treaty breach in respect of the Crown acquisition of the island. The Crown intends that any redress over Crown-owned land on Ahuahu / Great Mercury Island provided to any Iwi of Hauraki includes Ngati Tamatera.

CULTURAL REDRESS GENERALLY NON-EXCLUSIVE

5.66 The Crown may do anything that is consistent with the cultural redress, including entering into, and giving effect to, another settlement that provides for the same or similar cultural redress.

5.67 However, the Crown must not enter into another settlement that provides for the same redress as set out in clauses 5.1 and 5.24, and clauses 5.27 to 5.30, as they relate to clauses 5.1 and 5.24.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

6 FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL REDRESS

FINANCIAL REDRESS

6.1 [The Crown must pay the governance entity on the settlement date $[ ], being thefinancial and commercial redress amount of $25,000,000 less -

6.1.1 $825,000 being the transfer value of the share of Whenuakite Station referred to in clause 6.5.1 (a)(i); and

6.1.2 [$30,000, being the agreed portion of the agreed transfer value of part 6-10 Homestead Drive referred to in clause 7.6.8; and]

6.1.3 [$1,800,000, being the agreed portion of the agreed transfer value of the Anzac Street, Takapuna property referred to in clause 7.6.11 on account of the settlement; and]

6.1.4 $1,296,797, being the agreed transfer value of the early release Pare Hauraki commercial redress properties referred to in clauses 7.4.1 to 7.4.11, or an agreed portion of the agreed transfer value if the property is being jointly transferred, on account of the settlement; and

6.1.5 $220,383, being the agreed transfer value of the Pare Hauraki commercialredress properties referred to in clauses 7.4.12 to 7.4.14, or an agreed portionof the agreed transfer value if the property is being jointly transferred; and

6.1.6 $15,300,000 (Pouarua on-account payment), being that part of the on-account payment that was paid on 15 November 2013 to the Pouarua Farm Limited Partnership attributable to Ngati Tamatera on account of the settlement; and

6.1.7 $500,000 (cash on-account payment) being the on-account payment thatwas paid on 14 July 2014 to the governance entity on account of thesettlement; and

6.1.8 $200,000, being the transfer value of the property at 996 State Highway 25, Whenuakite referred to in clause 6.2.2; and

6.1.9 $330,000, being the transfer value of the property at 2A and 2B Catherine Crescent, Whitianga referred to in clause 6.2.3; and

6.1.10 [$ ], being the transfer value of Te Puru School site (land only) referred to inclause 6.2.4.]

[The transfer value for Te Puru School site (land only) will be determined betweenthis deed being initialled and signed]


DEED OF SETTLEMENT6: FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL REDRESS

[Redress in this clause is to be confirmed before the Marutuahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed is initialled]

COMMERCIAL REDRESS PROPERTIES

6.2 The commercial redress properties are -

6.2.1 Whenuakite Station;

6.2.2 996 State Highway 25, Whenuakite;

6.2.3 2A and 2B Catherine Crescent, Whitianga; and

6.2.4 Te Puru School site (land only), if clauses 6.7 and 6.9 do not apply.

6.3 The transfer of each commercial redress property that is not Whenuakite Station will be subject to, and where applicable with the benefit of, the encumbrances provided in part 3 of the property redress schedule in relation to that property.

6.4 Each commercial redress property that is not Whenuakite Station is to be -

6.4.1 transferred by the Crown to the governance entity on the settlement date -

(a) as part of the redress to settle the historical claims, and without any other consideration to be paid or provided by the governance entity or any other person; and

(b) on the terms of transfer in part 9 of the property redress schedule; and

6.4.2 as described, and is to have the transfer value provided, in part 3 of the property redress schedule.

Whenuakite Station

6.5 Whenuakite Station is to be -

6.5.1 transferred by the Crown -

(a) on the settlement date to the governance entity and the trustees of the Hei o Wharekaho Settlement Trust, as tenants in common in the following shares:

(i) an undivided 15% share in the governance entity:

(ii) an undivided 85% share in the trustees of the Hei o WharekahoSettlement Trust; and



(b) in relation to the share referred to in clause 6.5.1(a)(i), as part of the redress to settle the historical claims and without any other consideration to be paid or provided by the governance entity or any other person; and

(c) on the terms of transfer in part 9 of the property redress schedule; and

6.5.2 as described, and is to have, in relation to the share referred to in clause 6.5.1(a)(i), the transfer value provided, in part 3 of the property redress schedule.

6.6 The transfer of Whenuakite Station will be -

6.6.1 subject to, and where applicable with the benefit of, the encumbrances provided in part 3 of the property redress schedule in relation to that property; and

6.6.2 subject to the Crown by or on the settlement date granting the grazing licence in relation to that property in the form set out in part 7.27 of the documents schedule.

Te Puru School site (land only)

6.7 Despite every other provision in this deed, Te Puru School site (land only) will not be a commercial redress property, and all references to that property will be deemed to be removed from this deed if, before the settlement date, the caveat with instrument number 8571237.1, South Auckland Land Registration District, registered against this property, is not withdrawn in accordance with section 147 of the Land Transfer Act 1952.

6.8 Te Puru School site (land only) is to be leased back to the Crown, immediately after itstransfer to the governance entity, on the terms and conditions provided by the lease forthat property in part 8 of the documents schedule (being a registrable ground lease for the property, ownership of the improvements remaining unaffected by the purchase).

WITHDRAWAL OF TE PURU SCHOOL SITE (LAND ONLY)

6.9 In the event that Te Puru School site (land only) becomes surplus to the land holdingagency’s requirements, then the Crown may, at any time before the settlement date,give written notice to the governance entity advising it that the school site is no longer available as a commercial redress property.

6.10 If clause 6.7 or clause 6.9 applies:

6.10.1 the amount referred to in clause 6.1.10 is reduced accordingly; and

6.10.2 the amount the Crown must pay to the governance entity under clause 6.1 is correspondingly increased.

6.11

6.12

6.13

6.14

_______________________ DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________6: FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL REDRESS

COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES

[Clauses 6.11 to 6.14 are subject to the transfer values for each of the properties referred to in clause 6.11 being agreed or determined prior to deed signing. Once transfer values are agreed or determined, some of the properties referred to in clause 6.11 may become commercial redress properties and will cease to be commercial properties. If this should occur, the clauses in this part 6 and in relevant parts of the general matters schedule and the property redress schedule will be amended (including inserting a transfer value for each of the properties referred to in clause 6.11, as appropriate) to reflect these changes. This note will then be deleted, prior to deed signing.]

[The commercial properties described in part 4 of the property redress schedule are -

6.11.1 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site C (being part of Fletcher Bay RecreationReserve);

6.11.2 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D (being part of Fletcher Bay Recreation Reserve);

6.11.3 Waikanae site A (being part of Waikawau Bay Farm Park Recreation Reserve);

6.11.4 Whakaangi site A (being part of Stony Bay Recreation Reserve);

6.11.5 Whakaangi site B (being part of Stony Bay Recreation Reserve); and

6.11.6 O-kahu-tai site A (being part of Sandy Bay Recreation Reserve).]

The commercial properties, with the exception of Waikanae site A, referred to in clause 6.11.3, are part of an area known as Cape Colville Farm Park.

[Each commercial property is to be -

6.13.1 transferred by the Crown to the governance entity on the settlement date and on the terms of transfer in part 9 of the property redress schedule; and

6.13.2 as described, and is to have the transfer value provided, in part 4 of the property redress schedule.]

[The Crown and the governance entity are to be treated as having entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of each commercial property at its transfer value plus GST if any, on the terms in part 9 of the property redress schedule and under which on the settlement date -


6.14.1 the Crown must transfer each property to the governance entity; and



6.14.2 the governance entity must pay to the Crown an amount equal to the transfer value of each property, plus GST if any, by -

(a) the SCP system, as defined in Guideline 6.2 of the New Zealand Law Society’s Property Law Section’s Property Transactions and E-Dealing Practice Guidelines (April 2015); or

(b) another payment method agreed in writing by the governance entity and the Crown.]

6.15 The transfer of each commercial property will be -

6.15.1 subject to, and where applicable with the benefit of, the encumbrancesprovided in part 4 of the property redress schedule in relation to that property;and

6.15.2 in the case of O-kaharoa ki waenganui site C, subject to the governance entityproviding a restrictive covenant in gross in relation to that property in the formin part 7.28 of the documents schedule; and

6.15.3 in the case of O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D, subject to the governance entity providing -

(a) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.29 of the documents schedule;

(b) a registrable easement for a right to store and convey water in relation to that property in the form in part 7.30 of the documents schedule; and

(c) a registrable right of way easement in relation to that property in theform in part 7.31 of the documents schedule; and

6.15.4 in the case of O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D, together with a registrable easement for a right to convey water in favour of that property in the form in part 7.32 of the documents schedule; and

6.15.5 in the case of Whakaangi site A, subject to the governance entity providing -

(a) a registrable right of way easement in relation to that property in theform in part 7.4 of the documents schedule; and

(b) a registrable easement in gross for a walkway in relation to that property in the form in part 7.3 of the documents schedule; and

(c) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.33 of the documents schedule; and



(d) a registrable easement for a right of access to maintain, repair, replace and remove improvements in relation to that property in the form in part7.4 of the documents schedule; and

[The location of Poley Hut is to be confirmed by survey. If the Poley Hut is not included within this site then the relevant easement provisions at subclause (d) above will instead apply to the cultural redress property called Okaharoa-ma-whiti]

6.15.6 in the case of Waikanae site A, subject to the governance entity providing -

(a) a registrable easement for the right to convey water in relation to that property in the form in part 7.34 of the documents schedule; and

(b) a registrable easement in gross for a right of access to maintain, repair, replace and remove improvements in relation to that property in the form in part 7.35 of the documents schedule; and

(c) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.36 of the documents schedule; and

(d) a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in part 7.37 of the documents schedule; and

6.15.7 in relation to O-kahu-tai site A, subject to the governance entity providing a registrable right of way easement in gross in relation to that property in the form in in part 7.38 of the documents schedule.

[The status of council assets on O-kahu-tai site A is to be determined]

6.16 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 132B, 133, 133C to 133E and 133J of the draft settlement bill, provide that[, if there is a transfer of the property under section 125 of the draft settlement bill] -

6.16.1 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D will be a recreation reserve named O-kaharoaki waenganui Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

6.16.2 O-kahu-tai site A will be a scenic reserve named O-kahu-tai Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

6.16.3 Whakaangi site A will be a scenic reserve named Whakaangi Reserve, withthe governance entity as the administering body; and

6.16.4 Whakaangi site B will be a recreation reserve named Whakaangi Reserve,with the governance entity as the administering body; and



6.17

6.18

6.19

6.16.5 Waikanae site A will be a recreation reserve named Waikanae Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

6.16.6 each of the following properties will be included in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park:

(a) O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D:

(b) Whakaangi site A:

(c) Whakaangi site B:

(d) Waikanae site A:

(e) O-kahu-tai site A.

The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by section 133H of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if there is a transfer of each property under section 125 ofthe draft settlement bill, each property referred to in clause 6.18 will be subject to a rightof entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes.

Clause 6.17 applies in relation to each of the following properties:

6.18.1 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site C:

6.18.2 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D:

6.18.3 Whakaangi site A:

6.18.4 Whakaangi site B:

6.18.5 O-kahu-tai site A.

The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 133F and 1331 of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if there is a transfer of the property under section 125 of the draft settlement bill -

6.19.1 the following sections of the draft settlement bill apply to each of the properties referred to in clause 6.20, as if that property were a reserve property (as defined in the draft settlement bill) that will vest in the governance entity under subpart 1 of part 2 of the draft settlement bill:

(a) section 67(2) and (5):

(b) section 68(1 )(a)(i) and (ii), (2), (3), and (7):

(c) section 73(2) to (5):



6.20

6.21

6.22

6.23

6.24

(d) sections 77 to 81; and

6.19.2 sections 71(2) to (6) and 72 will apply to each of the properties referred to inclause 6.21 as if each property were vested in the governance entity rather than being transferred to the governance entity.

Clause 6.19.1 applies in relation to each of the following properties:

6.20.1 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site D:



6.20.4 Waikanae site A:


Clause 6.19.2 applies in relation to each of the following properties:

6.21.1 O-kaharoa ki waenganui site C:

6.21.2 O-kaharoa ki waenganui D:



6.21.5 Waikanae site A:


DEFERRED SELECTION PROPERTIES

The governance entity may, during the deferred selection period for the deferred selection properties described in part 5 of the property redress schedule, give the Crown a written notice of interest for both properties in accordance with paragraph 7.1 of the property redress schedule.

Part 7 of the property redress schedule provides for the effect of the notice and sets out a process where the properties are valued together and may be acquired together by the governance entity.

The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 133A and 133B of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if there is a transfer of the deferred selection properties under section 125 of the draft settlement bill -



6.24.1 Paritu site A will be a recreation reserve named Paritu Recreation Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body; and

6.24.2 Paritu site B will be a scenic reserve named Paritu Scenic Reserve, with the governance entity as the administering body.

6.25 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by section 133H of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if there is a transfer of both properties under section 125 of the draft settlement bill, each property referred to in clause 6.24 will be subject to a right of entry in favour of the Department of Conservation for pest control purposes.

6.26 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 133F and 1331 of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if there is a transfer of the property under section 125 of the draft settlement bill -

6.26.1 the following sections of the draft settlement bill apply to each of the properties referred to in clause 6.24, as if that property were a reserve property (as defined in the draft settlement bill) that will vest in the governance entity under subpart 1 of part 2 of the draft settlement bill:

(a) section 67(2) and (5):

(b) section 68(1 )(a)(i) and (ii), (2), (3), and (7):

(c) section 73(2) to (5):

(d) sections 77 to 81; and

6.26.2 sections 71(2) to (6) and 72 will apply to each of the properties referred to in clause 6.24 as if each property were vested in the governance entity rather than being transferred to the governance entity.

6.27 The deferred selection properties are part of an area known as Cape Colville Farm Park.

JOINT SECOND RIGHT OF PURCHASE OF POUARUA PEAT BLOCK

[Note: Ngati Maru and Ngati Tamatera have the joint right to purchase thePouarua Peat Block (second right of purchase property) if that property becomes available to them (i.e. is not required for use in another Treaty settlement). Ngati Maru and Ngati Tamatera will have a one month period in which to serve a notice of interest to Landcorp. Further details will be set out in this deed before it is signed]



SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION

6.28 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by sections 124 to 134 of the draft settlement bill, enable the transfer of the commercial redress properties, each commercial property and the deferred selection properties.

SHARED RFR IN RELATION TO AOTEA RFR LAND

6.29 The governance entity, the trustees of the Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, and the trustees of the Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust are to have a right of first refusal in relation to a disposal by the Crown or a Crown body of Aotea RFR land, being land listed in the attachments as Aotea RFR land that, on the settlement date, -

6.29.1 is vested in the Crown; or

6.29.2 the fee simple for which is held by the Crown; or

6.29.3 is a reserve vested in an administering body that derived title to the reserve from the Crown and that would, on the application of section 25 or 27 of the Reserves Act 1977, revest in the Crown.

6.30 The right of first refusal is -

6.30.1 to be on the terms provided by sections 151 to 182 of the draft settlement bill; and

6.30.2 in particular, to apply -

(a) for a term of 177 years from the settlement date; but

(b) only if the Aotea RFR land is not being disposed of in the circumstances provided by sections 160 to 169 or a matter referred to in section 170(1) of the draft settlement bill.

APPLICATION OF CROWN MINERALS ACT 1991

6.31 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by subpart 2 of part 3 of the draft settlement bill, provide that -

6.31.1 despite section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (minerals reserved to the Crown), any Crown owned minerals in -

(a) any commercial redress property transferred to the governance entity, under this deed; or

(b) any commercial property transferred to the governance entity, under this deed; or

In itia lling version fo r presentation to Ngati Tamatera for ratification purposes.


(c) the purchased deferred selection properties transferred to the governance entity, under this deed; or

(d) the second right of purchase property transferred to the governance entity, under this deed; or

[Drafting in relation to the second right of purchase property is subject to amendment]

(e) the Pouarua Farm property; or

(f) any Aotea RFR land transferred to the governance entity under a contract formed under section 159 of the draft settlement bill,

transfer with, and form part of, that property; but

6.31.2 that transfer does not -

(a) limit section 10 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (petroleum, gold, silver and uranium); or

(b) affect other existing lawful rights to subsurface minerals.

6.32 The settlement legislation will, on the terms provided by subpart 2 of part 3 of the draft settlement bill, provide that, if the fee simple estate in a property is transferred in accordance with this part to the governance entity and others as tenants in common, any minerals in the property that would have been reserved to the Crown by section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (but for clause 6.31.1) will be owned by the governance entity in the same proportion in which the fee simple estate is held by it.

6.33 Sections 140 to 149 of the draft settlement bill establish a regime for the payment of royalties received by the Crown, in the previous 8 years, in respect of the vested minerals to which clause 6.31 applies.

6.34 The Crown acknowledges, to avoid doubt, that it has no property in any minerals existing in their natural condition in Maori customary land (as defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993), other than those minerals referred to in section 10 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 or if provided in any other enactment.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

7 COLLECTIVE REDRESS

DEEDS PROVIDING COLLECTIVE REDRESS

7.1 Ngati Tamatera is -

7.1.1 one of the iwi of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau;

7.1.2 a party to the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective RedressDeed between the Crown and Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau;

7.1.3 one of the 12 Iwi of Hauraki;

7.1.4 a party to the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed between the Crown andthe Iwi of Hauraki;

7.1.5 one of the iwi of the Marutuahu Iwi; and

7.1.6 a party to the Marutuahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed between the Crown and the Marutuahu Iwi.

NGA MANA WHENUA O TAMAKI MAKAURAU COLLECTIVE REDRESS

7.2 The parties record that the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective RedressDeed -

7.2.1 provides for the following redress:

Cultural redress in relation to Tamaki Makaurau area

(a) cultural redress in relation to particular Crown-owned portions of maunga1 and motu2 of the inner Hauraki Gulf / TTkapa Moana:

(b) governance arrangements relating to four motu3 of the inner Hauraki Gulf / TTkapa Moana:

(c) a relationship agreement with the Crown, through the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation, in the form set out in part 2 of the documents schedule to the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed, in relation to public conservation land in the Tamaki Makaurau Region (as defined in the relationship agreement):

1 Matukutururu, Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill, Maungarei / MountWellington, Maungauika, Maungawhau / Mount Eden, Mount Albert, Mount Roskill, Mount St John, Ohinerau / Mount Hobson, Ohuiarangi / Pigeon Mountain, Otahuhu / Mount Richmond, Rarotonga / Mount Smart, Takarunga / Mount Victoria, and Te Tatua-a-Riukiuta.2 Rangitoto Island, Motutapu Island, Motuihe Island / Te Motu-a-lhenga and Tiritiri Matangi Island.3 Rangitoto Island, Motutapu Island, Motuihe Island / Te Motu-a-lhenga and Motukorea.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT7: COLLECTIVE REDRESS

(d) changing the geographic names of particular sites of significance in the Tamaki Makaurau area:

Commercial redress in relation to RFR land

(e) a right of first refusal over RFR land (as defined in the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed) for a period of 172 years from the date the right becomes operative:

Right to purchase any nonselected deferred selection properties

(f) a right to purchase any property situated in the RFR area (as defined in the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed) -

(i) in relation to which one of the iwi of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau has a right of deferred selection under a deed of settlement with the Crown; but

(ii) that is not purchased under that right of deferred selection; and

Acknowledgement in relation to cultural redress in respect o f the Waitemata and Manukau harbours

7.2.2 includes an acknowledgement that, although the Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed does not provide for cultural redress in respect of the Waitemata and the Manukau harbours, that cultural redress is to be developed in separate negotiations between the Crown and Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau.

PARE HAURAKI COLLECTIVE REDRESS

7.3 The parties record the following summary of redress intended to be provided for in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed. The summary is non-comprehensive and provided for reference only; in the event of any conflict between the terms of the summary and the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed, the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed prevails:

Cultural redress

7.3.1 vesting of 1,000 hectares at Moehau maunga in fee simple subject to government purpose (Pare Hauraki whenua kura and ecological sanctuary) reserve status, and co-governance and other arrangements over the entire 3,600 hectare Moehau Ecological Area, including the ability to undertake specified cultural activities as permitted activities:

7.3.2 vesting of 1,000 hectares at Te Aroha maunga in fee simple subject to local purpose (Pare Hauraki whenua kura) reserve status being administered by the Pare Hauraki collective cultural entity:

In itia lling version fo r presentation to Ngati Tamatera for ratification purposes.


7.3.3 governance arrangements in relation to public conservation land, including a decision-making framework (which encompasses a regime for consideration of iwi interests including in relation to concession applications), recognition of the Pare Hauraki World View, and other arrangements including the joint preparation and approval of a Conservation Management Plan covering the Coromandel Peninsula, motu4 and wetlands5:

7.3.4 transfer of specific decision-making powers from the Department of Conservation to iwi, including in relation to customary materials and possession of dead protected fauna; a wahi tapu management framework; and review of the Conservation Management Strategy to ensure the Iwi of Hauraki values and interests are provided for:

7.3.5 natural resource management and governance arrangements over the Waihou and Piako Rivers, the Coromandel Peninsula catchment, the Mangatangi and Mangatawhiri waterway catchments, the Whangamarino wetland and the Tauranga Moana catchments and coastal marine area:

7.3.6 a statutory acknowledgement over the Kaimai Mamaku Range:

7.3.7 $3,000,000 funding and other support for te reo revitalisation:

7.3.8 Ministry for Primary Industries redress, including a right of first refusal over fisheries quota for a period of 176 years from the date the right becomes operative, and recognition of the Pare Hauraki World View by the three principal Acts administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries:

7.3.9 changing the geographic names of specified areas of significance:

7.3.10 a letter of introduction to the responsible Ministers under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 in relation to sensitive land sales:

7.3.11 $500,000 towards the Pare Hauraki collective cultural entity:

Commercial redress

7.3.12 the transfer of the Kauaeranga, Tairua, Whangamata and Whangapoua Forests, the Hauraki Athenree Forest and Hauraki Waihou Forest (being licensed land as defined in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed):

7.3.13 the early release of certain landbank properties and transfer of other landbank properties on the settlement date:

7.3.14 the right to purchase specific parcels of land administered by the Department of Conservation on a deferred selection basis:

4 Including Motutapere Island, Cuvier Island (Repanga), the Mercury Islands, Rabbit Island, the Aldermen Islands (Ruamaahua).5 Including Kopuatai, Torehape and Taramaire wetlands.



7.3.15 a right of first refusal over RFR land (as defined in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed), including land held by Crown entities and the Housing New Zealand Corporation, and the Cuvier lighthouse, for a period of 176 years from the date the right becomes operative:

7.3.16 additional rights of refusal over land in Tauranga (for a period of 176 years) and Waikato (as defined in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed):

Minerals

7.3.17 the transfer of certain Crown-owned minerals in land vested or transferred under the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed:

7.3.18 involvement in any review of ownership of gold and silver:

7.3.19 a relationship agreement with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Pare Hauraki Landbank Properties

7.4 The parties acknowledge that it is intended that the following properties must betransferred by the Pare Hauraki collective commercial entity to the governance entity,either solely, or jointly with other iwi, as the case may be, as referred to in the PareHauraki Collective Redress Deed:

Early release commercial redress properties

7.4.1 132 Park Road, Katikati:

7.4.2 Cnr Orchard East Road / SH2, Ngatea (jointly with Ngati Maru Runanga Trust):

7.4.3 28 Waimarei Avenue, Paeroa (jointly with Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust):

7.4.4 1679 State Highway 2, Athenree (jointly with Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust):

7.4.5 179 Normanby Road, Paeroa (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust):

7.4.6 Seddon Avenue / Waitete Road / Orchard Road, Waihi (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust):

7.4.7 105 Isabel Street, Whangamata (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust):

7.4.8 1-5 Toko Road, Whangamata (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust):

_____________________________DEED OF SETTLEMENT________________ ____________7: COLLECTIVE REDRESS

7.4.9 Feisst Road / Bell Road, Maramarua (jointly with Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust):

7.4.10 401 Achilles Avenue, Whangamata (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngati Tumutumu/Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust):

7.4.11 107 Ajax Road, Whangamata (jointly with Hako Tupuna Trust, Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngati Tara Tokanui Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Ruunanga Trust):

Commercial redress properties

7.4.12 6 Gordon Avenue, Te Aroha:

7.4.13 16 Gordon Avenue, Te Aroha:

7.4.14 35 Stanley Avenue, Te Aroha (jointly with Ngati Tumutumu/Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu Trust).

Housing New Zealand Corporation righ t o f firs t refusal

7.5 The parties acknowledge that the governance entity, along with the governance entity or governance entities of the iwi specified in the fourth column of the table, will be entitled to receive any right of first refusal offer received by the Pare Hauraki collective commercial entity under the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed in respect of the following properties:


Land Holding Agency

Housing New Zealand Corporation

Property ID Address Legal Description Iwi

HSS0028614 Thames 0.0718 hectares, more or less, being Lot 4 DPS 15860. All computer freehold register SA17A/340.

Ngati Maru / Ngati Tamatera

_______DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________7: COLLECTIVE REDRESS


HSS0028615 Thames 0.1039 hectares, more or less, being Lot 3 DPS 276. All computer freehold register SA17B/202.


HSS0028630 Paeroa 0.0842 hectares, more or less, being Lot 37 DPS 1349. All computer freehold register SA9B/1374.

Ngati Tamatera




Ngati Maru / Ngati Tamatera / Te Patukirikiri

TUS0007215 Thames 0.0540 hectares, more or less, being Lot 1 DPS 73266. All computer freehold register SA59A/127.










_______DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________7: COLLECTIVE REDRESS






TUS0007234 Thames 0.0499 hectares, more or less, being Lot 1 DPS 88415. Part computer freehold register SA69A/840.

0.0431 hectares, more or less, being % share of fee simple, Lot 5 DPS 88415. Part computer freehold register SA69A/840.


TUS0007233 Thames 0.0382 hectares, more or less, being Lot 2 DPS 88415. Part computer freehold register SA69A/841.

0.0431 hectares, more or less, being % share of fee simple, Lot 5 DPS 88415. Part computer freehold register SA69A/841.






______ DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________7: COLLECTIVE REDRESS

In itialling version fo r presentation to Ngati Tamatera for ratification purposes.











HSS0029325 Thames 0.0744 hectares, more or less, being Lot 4 DPS 2710. All computer freehold register SA9C/436.










MARUTGAHU IWI COLLECTIVE REDRESS

7.6 The parties record the following summary of redress intended to be provided for in the Marutuahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed. The summary is non-comprehensive and provided solely for reference. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the summary and the MarutGahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed, the MarutGahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed prevails:

Cultural redress

7.6.1 vesting of land at the following properties:

(a) Omahu property (Maungarei):

(b) Moutohora property (Motuora):

(o) MarutGahu property (Mahurangi):

(d) Te Wharekura property (Tiritiri Matangi)

(e) Te Mokai a Tinirau property (Motuihe):

(f) Mangoparerua Pa property (Motuihe):

(g) Taurarua property A:

(h) [Taurarua property B]:

(i) Whangaparaoa property:

G) Te Kawau Tu Maru property (Kawau):

7.6.2 vesting of the Fort Takapuna Guardhouse on the Fort Takapuna Recreation Reserve:

7.6.3 transfer of the Sunny Bay Wharf on Kawau Island:

7.6.4 statutory acknowledgements for Motutapu area, Fort Takapuna area, Waipapa area, Taurarua area and Mutukaroa / Hamlin Hill:

7.6.5 a coastal statutory acknowledgement for Ngai Tai Whakarewa Kauri MarutGahu Iwi:

7.6.6 a relationship agreement with the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to Waipapa:



7.6.7 a letter from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to the AucklandCouncil regarding inclusion of Mutukaroa / Hamlin Hill in the integrated management plan prepared and approved by the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority:

Commercial redress

7.6.8 the transfer of part 6-10 Homestead Drive, Mt Wellington:

7.6.9 the transfer of the Maramarua Forest on specified terms:

7.6.10 [the purchase of New Zealand Defence Force properties on the North Shoreand Whangaparaoa Peninsula on specified terms:]

7.6.11 the transfer of the Anzac Street, Takapuna property as an early release property:

7.6.12 the opportunity to purchase, for two years from settlement date, the following deferred selection properties:

(a) specified landbank properties:

(b) the Panmure Probation Centre and the Boston Road Probation Centresubject to leaseback to the Department of Corrections:

(c) specified school sites (land only) subject to selection criteria andleaseback to the Ministry of Education:

7.6.13 the transfer of the Torpedo Bay property on specified terms with Ngai Tai ki Tamaki as a purchase and lease back to the Crown:

7.6.14 the deferred purchase of land at Waipapa administered by the New Zealand Transport Agency on specified terms and for a 35 year period from settlement date:

7.6.15 a right of first refusal over exclusive RFR land in the Kaipara region for a period of 177 years from settlement date:

7.6.16 a right of first refusal for shared RFR land with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara over specified properties in the Kaipara region for a period of 169 years from its commencement date:

7.6.17 a shared right of first refusal with Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua over RFR land in a specified area in the Mahurangi region for a period of 173 years from its commencement date.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

8 TlKAPA MOANA - TE TAI TAMAWAHINE

8.1 TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine (and the harbours in those water bodies) are of great spiritual, cultural, customary, ancestral and historical significance to Ngati Tamatera.

8.2 Ngati Tamatera and the Crown acknowledge and agree that this deed does not provide for cultural redress in relation to TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine as that is to be developed in separate negotiations between the Crown and Ngati Tamatera.

8.3 Ngati Tamatera consider, but without in any way derogating from clause 8.10, negotiations with the Crown will not be complete until they receive cultural redress in relation to TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine.

8.4 The Crown recognises:

8.4.1 the significant and longstanding history of protest and grievance on the Crown’s actions in relation to TTkapa Moana, including the 1869 petition of Tanumeha Te Moananui and other Pare Hauraki rangatira and the Kauaeranga Judgment; and

8.4.2 Ngati Tamatera have long sought co-governance and integrated management of TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine.

8.5 The Crown acknowledges that the aspirations of Ngati Tamatera for TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine include co-governance with relevant agencies in order to:

8.5.1 restore and enhance the ability of those water bodies to provide nourishment and spiritual sustenance;

8.5.2 recognise the significance of those water bodies as maritime pathways (aramoana) to settlements throughout the Pare Hauraki rohe; and

8.5.3 facilitate the exercise by Ngati Tamatera of kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga and tikanga manaakitanga.

8.6 The Crown and iwi share many goals for natural resource management, including environmental integrity, the sustainable use of natural resources to promote economic development, and community and cultural well-being for all New Zealanders. The Crown recognises the relationships Ngati Tamatera have with natural resources, and that the iwi have an important role in their care.

8.7 The Crown agrees to negotiate redress in relation to TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine as soon as practicable, and will seek sustainable and durable arrangements involving Ngati Tamatera in the natural resource management of TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine that are based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi.

Ia

DEED OF SETTLEMENT


8: TlKAPA MOANA - TE TAI TAMAWAHINE

8.8 This deed does not address the realignment of the representation of iwi on the Hauraki Gulf Forum under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. This matter will be explored in the negotiations overTTkapa Moana.

8.9 The Crown owes iwi a duty consistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi to negotiate redress for TTkapa Moana - Te Tai Tamawahine in good faith.

8.10 Ngati Tamatera are not precluded from making a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of the process referred to in clause 8.7.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

9 SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION, CONDITIONS, AND TERMINATION

SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION

9.1 The Crown must propose the draft settlement bill for introduction to the House of Representatives.

9.2 The settlement legislation will provide for all matters for which legislation is required to give effect to this deed of settlement.

9.3 The draft settlement bill proposed for introduction to the House of Representatives -

9.3.1 may be in the form of an omnibus bill that includes bills settling the claims of the Iwi of Hauraki; and

9.3.2 must comply with the relevant drafting conventions for a government bill; and

9.3.3 must be in a form that is satisfactory to Ngati Tamatera and the Crown.

9.4 The Crown must not after introduction to the House of Representatives propose changes to the draft settlement bill other than changes agreed in writing by Ngati Tamatera and the Crown.

9.5 Ngati Tamatera and the governance entity must support the passage of the draft settlement bill through Parliament.

SETTLEMENT CONDITIONAL

9.6 This deed, and the settlement, are conditional on the settlement legislation coming into force.

9.7 However, the following provisions of this deed are binding on its signing:

9.7.1 clauses 6.9, 6.10 and 9.4 to 9.11:

9.7.2 paragraph 1.3, and parts 4 to 7, of the general matters schedule.

EFFECT OF THIS DEED

9.8 This deed-

9.8.1 is “without prejudice” until it becomes unconditional; and

9.8.2 in particular, may not be used as evidence in proceedings before, or presented to, the Waitangi Tribunal, any court, or any other judicial body or tribunal.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT9: SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION, CONDITIONS, AND TERMINATION

9.9 Clause 9.8 does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or enforcement of this deed.

TERMINATION

9.10 The Crown or the governance entity may terminate this deed, by notice to the other, if -

9.10.1 the settlement legislation has not come into force within 36 months after the date of this deed; and

9.10.2 the terminating party has given the other party at least 40 business days’ notice of an intention to terminate.

9.11 If this deed is terminated in accordance with its provisions, -

9.11.1 this deed (and the settlement) are at an end; and

9.11.2 subject to this clause, this deed does not give rise to any rights or obligations; and

9.11.3 this deed remains “without prejudice”; but

9.11.4 the parties intend that-

(a) the on-account payments;

(b) any property referred to in clauses 7.4.1 to 7.4.11, if that property is transferred pursuant to the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed; and

(c) [the Anzac Street, Takapuna property, referred to in clause 7.6.11, if that property is transferred pursuant to the Marutuahu Iwi Collective Redress Deed,]

are taken into account in any future settlement of the historical claims.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

10 GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

GENERAL

10.1 The general matters schedule includes provisions in relation to -

10.1.1 the implementation of the settlement; and

10.1.2 the Crown’s -

(a) payment of interest in relation to the settlement; and

(b) tax indemnities in relation to redress; and

10.1.3 giving notice under this deed or a settlement document; and

10.1.4 amending this deed.

HISTORICAL CLAIMS

10.2 In this deed, historical claims -

10.2.1 means every claim (whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered,researched, registered, notified, or made by or on the settlement date) that Ngati Tamatera, or a representative entity, had at, or at any time before, the settlement date, or may have at any time after the settlement date, and that -

(a) is, or is founded on, a right arising -

(i) from Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles;or

(ii) under legislation; or

(iii) at common law, including aboriginal title or customary law; or

(iv) from fiduciary duty; or

(v) otherwise; and

(b) arises from, or relates to, acts or omissions before 21 September 1992-

(i) by, or on behalf of, the Crown; or

(ii) by or under legislation; and

_______________________DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________10: GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

10.2.2 includes every claim to the Waitangi Tribunal to which clause 10.2.1 applies that relates exclusively to Ngati Tamatera or a representative entity, including the following claims:

(a) Wai 418 - Waikawau Purchase claim:

(b) Wai 778 - Ngati Tamatera Lands and Taonga claim:

(c) Wai 2272 - Ripeka Parehuia Peke-Hawkins Whanau Trust claim; and

10.2.3 includes every other claim to the Waitangi Tribunal to which clause 10.2.1 applies, so far as it relates to Ngati Tamatera or a representative entity, including the following claims:

(a) Wai 100 - Hauraki Maori Trust Board claim:

(b) Wai 177 - Hauraki Gold Mining Lands claim:

(c) Wai 349 - Hauraki Tribal Rohe claim:

(d) Wai 373 - Maramarua State Forest claim:

(e) Wai 374 - Auckland Central Railways Land claim:

(f) Wai 454 - Marutuahu Tribal Region claim:

(g) Wai 475 - Whangapoua Forest claim:

(h) Wai 495 - Marutuahu Tribal Lands claim:

(i) Wai 496 - Tamaki Girls College and Other Lands within Tamaki Makaurau claim:

(j) Wai 557 - Te Kaokaoroa O Patetere claim:

(k) Wai 650 - Athenree Forest and Surrounding Lands claim:

(I) Wai 693 - Matamataharakeke Blocks claim:

(m) Wai 720 - Mahurangi-Omaha (Hauraki Gulf) claim:

(n) Wai 811 - Coromandel Township and Other Lands (Te Patukirikiri)claim:

(o) Wai 812 - Marutuahu Land and Taonga claim:

(p) Wai 865 - Waihou Railway Land claim:


10.3

10.4

10.5

_______________________ DEED OF SETTLEMENT_____________________________10: GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

(q) Wai 887 - Ngawaka Tautari Lands (Auckland Kaipara) claim:

(r) Wai 968 - Korohere Ngapo Harataunga Lands claim:

(s) Wai 970 - Tamatepo Hauraki Lands claim:

(t) Wai 997 - Tauteka Papaaroha 1 Block claim:

(u) Wai 1696 - Tararu Land (Nicholls) claim:

(v) Wai 1807 - Descendants of Tipa Compain claim:

(w) Wai 1891 - Ngaromaki Block Trust Mining claim:

(x) Wai 2298 - W T Nicholls Estate Lands and Resources (Tukerangi) claim.

However, historical claims does not include the following claims:

10.3.1 a claim that a member of Ngati Tamatera, or a whanau, hapu, or groupreferred to in clause 10.5.2, may have that is, or is founded on, a right arisingas a result of being descended from a tupuna who is not referred to in clause10.5.1:

10.3.2 a claim that a representative entity may have to the extent the claim is, or is founded, on a claim referred to in clause 10.3.1.

To avoid doubt, clause 10.2.1 is not limited by clauses 10.2.2 or 10.2.3.

NGATI TAMATERA

In this deed, Ngati Tamatera means -

10.5.1 the collective group composed of individuals who descend from a Ngati Tamatera tupuna or ancestor; and

10.5.2 every whanau, hapu, or group to the extent that it is composed of individualsreferred to in clause 10.5.1, including the following groups:


(a) Ngati Kiriwera:

(b) Ngati Pare:

(c) Ngati Pinenga:

(d) Ngati Taharua:


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

10.6

10.7

10.8

10: GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

(e) Ngati Taiuru:

(f) Ngati Tangata:

(g) Ngati Tawhaki:

(h) Ngati Rangitaua:

(i) Ngati TeRoro:

(j) Te Mango:

(k) Te Matewaru:

(I) Ngati Wehenga; and

10.5.3 every individual referred to in clause 10.5.1.

For the avoidance of doubt, Ngati Tangata as referenced in 10.5.2(f) does not mean the hapD of Ngati Hinerangi.

For the avoidance of doubt, clause 10.5.2 does not include Ngati Pukeko hapu at Whakatane.

For the purposes of clause 10.5.1 -

10.8.1 a person is descended from another person if the first person is descended from the other by -

(a) birth; or

(b) legal adoption; or

(c) Maori customary adoption excluding those who are not in their own right Ngati Tamatera; and

10.8.2 Ngati Tamatera tupuna or ancestor means an individual who -

(a) exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from -

(i) Tamatera; or

(ii) a recognised tupuna or ancestor of any of the groups referred to in clause 10.5.2; and

(b) exercised customary rights predominantly in relation to the area of interest after 6 February 1840; and


DEED OF SETTLEMENT10: GENERAL, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

10.8.3 customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices), including -

(a) rights to occupy land and waters, including coastal lands and waters; and

(b) rights in relation to the use of land, waters or other natural or physical resources.

MANDATED NEGOTIATORS AND SIGNATORIES

10.9 In this deed, mandated negotiators means the following individuals -

10.9.1 Terrence John McEnteer; and

10.9.2 Debra Liane Ngamane.

ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS

10.10 The definitions in part 6 of the general matters schedule apply to this deed.

INTERPRETATION

10.11 Part 7 of the general matters schedule applies to the interpretation of this deed.


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

SIGNED as a deed on [date]

SIGNED for and on behalf of NGATI TAMATERA bythe mandated negotiators in the presence o f -

Terrence John McEnteer

Debra Liane Ngamane

WITNESS

Name:

Occupation:

Address:


DEED OF SETTLEMENT

SIGNED for and on behalf of THE CROWN by -

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the presence of -

The Minister of Finance(only in relation to the tax indemnities)in the presence of -

WITNESS

Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon Steven Leonard Joyce

Name:

Occupation:

Address:

initialling version for presentation to ngati tamatera …initialling version for presentation to...

Documents